Position Paper: An Analysis of a Proposed No-Opt-Out Policy for LGBTQ+ Curriculum in the Issaquah School District

Editor's Note: LGBTQ+ issues are among Natalie Anderson's top campaign priorities, and she has been consistent on this topic. Earlier this year, she publicly stated that she supports a no-opt-out policy for all LGBTQ+ curriculum. However, implementing a blanket no-opt-out policy would be a violation of federal law and would put every parent, student, teacher, and the entire district at risk. Millions of dollars in federal funding would be withdrawn, and our district would be embroiled in legal disputes that distract from what truly matters — student learning and outcomes.

Do we really want a board member willing to provoke a confrontation with the federal government, all while claiming to help the LGBTQ+ community? Or do we want a board that keeps its focus on improving academics, safety, and accountability for all children? If this proposal is simply an attempt to inflame divisions during an election, that raises serious questions about judgment and priorities too.

Natalie has been endorsed and supported by several teachers' unions. We must call on the teachers’ unions and their leaders to carefully reconsider their endorsement of this position — and of any candidate who promotes policies that put our schools, teachers, and students at legal and financial risk, or distracts us from improving student outcomes. Let’s stand together for the values we share: educational excellence, stability, and respect for all families.

Listen to the analysis

0:00

I. Executive Summary

This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal, financial, and social ramifications of a proposed policy by a new school board candidate, Natalie Anderson, to eliminate all parental opt-outs for LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum within the Issaquah School District (ISD). The analysis evaluates the policy's viability in the current legal environment, its potential to create conflict, and its alignment with the fundamental responsibilities of school district governance. Natalie presented her position during the Issaquah Highlands School Board Forum in July 2025. A video containing the relevant clip can be found here.

Core Findings: The analysis concludes that the proposed policy is in direct and unambiguous violation of the controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025). This recent ruling affirmed the First Amendment right of parents to opt their children out of instruction that substantially interferes with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Consequently, if enacted, the candidate's policy would be legally indefensible. Its implementation would guarantee immediate and costly litigation that the district would be certain to lose. Furthermore, any attempt by the school board to defy the inevitable court orders enjoining the policy would expose the district and its individual board members to severe legal and financial sanctions, including contempt of court charges, substantial fines, and the potential for imprisonment of officials. The policy would also jeopardize essential federal funding streams that support the district's most vulnerable student populations, including low-income students and those with disabilities.

Conclusion: The proposed no-opt-out policy cannot be construed as being for the "good of the district." It represents an ideologically driven position that disregards established constitutional law and would predictably inflict severe and multifaceted harm upon the Issaquah School District, its students, and the community. Its implementation would constitute a profound breach of the school board's fiduciary and legal duties to protect the district's resources, uphold the law, and serve the educational needs of all its students.

II. The Prevailing Legal Landscape: Mahmoud v. Taylor and Parental Rights

The candidate's proposal for a blanket no-opt-out policy does not exist in a legal vacuum. It stands in direct opposition to a recent and definitive U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has fundamentally reshaped the legal landscape of parental rights in public education. Any consideration of this policy must begin with a thorough understanding of this controlling precedent and its direct application to the Issaquah School District.

A. The Unambiguous Precedent of Mahmoud v. Taylor

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a landmark 6-3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case originating from Montgomery County, Maryland.¹ The case involved a diverse group of parents from various religious backgrounds who challenged the school district's policy of mandating attendance for lessons that included LGBTQ+-themed storybooks in the elementary school curriculum.³ The Court's ruling established a clear constitutional framework that renders the candidate's proposed policy for the Issaquah School District legally untenable.

The central holding of Mahmoud v. Taylor is that parents possess a fundamental right under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause to direct the religious upbringing of their children.⁵ The Court affirmed that this right is unconstitutionally burdened when a school district requires children to participate in instruction that "substantially interferes with the religious development of their children" or poses a "very real threat of undermining" the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill.¹ The Court found that compelling young children to engage with materials and discussions designed to promote acceptance of LGBTQ+ lifestyles, which conflicted with the parents' religious views on sexuality and gender, constituted such a substantial interference.¹

Crucially, the Supreme Court explicitly invalidated the type of blanket no-opt-out policy the candidate proposes. The Montgomery County school board had initially allowed opt-outs but rescinded the policy, arguing it was administratively difficult and undermined the school's inclusive mission.¹ The Court rejected this rationale, pointing to the district's "robust system of exceptions" for other curricula and activities, such as the Family Health Curriculum.¹ This demonstrated that accommodations were feasible, and the refusal to offer them for the LGBTQ+-themed content was not a neutral, generally applicable policy. The Court concluded that such blanket no-opt-out policies are unconstitutional when they burden religious exercise.¹

As a result of this finding, the Court established that any government action, including a school district policy, that substantially burdens religious exercise must be reviewed under the demanding legal standard of "strict scrutiny".⁵ This is the highest level of judicial review. To satisfy this standard, the Issaquah School District would have to prove that its no-opt-out policy serves a "compelling interest" and is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest.¹ In Mahmoud, the Court acknowledged the state's interest in an "undisrupted school session," but found it was not compelling enough to override a fundamental constitutional right, especially when a less restrictive means—an opt-out system—was readily available.¹

B. Application of Mahmoud Factors to the Candidate's Policy

The Supreme Court in Mahmoud emphasized that the determination of whether a curriculum "substantially interferes" with religious development is a fact-intensive analysis, dependent on several key factors.⁴ The candidate's proposed policy for ISD, in its absolute and undifferentiated nature, fails to withstand scrutiny under each of these critical factors.

First, the age of the child is a significant consideration. The Court's concern in Mahmoud was particularly acute for elementary-aged children, for whom school instruction is highly formative and more likely to be perceived as undermining parental teachings on sensitive topics.³ A policy that applies universally from kindergarten through twelfth grade, with no distinction for the developmental and cognitive differences between a six-year-old and a seventeen-year-old, ignores this crucial aspect of the Court's analysis and would be exceptionally vulnerable to legal challenge.

Second, the nature of the presentation is paramount. The Court drew a distinction between the neutral, informational presentation of topics and materials that are presented in a manner "hostile to religious viewpoints" or that exert "psychological pressure to conform" to a particular worldview.⁴ The storybooks and associated teacher guidance in the Mahmoud case were viewed by the Court as actively promoting the acceptance of LGBTQ+ lifestyles, which directly conflicted with the plaintiffs' religious convictions.³ Should any of the LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum in the Issaquah School District be similarly framed—as promoting specific values rather than simply providing information—it would squarely fall under the protections for parental opt-out established by the Supreme Court. A blanket policy that forbids opt-outs regardless of how the material is presented is legally indefensible.

The candidate's policy is not a nuanced attempt to navigate a complex legal issue; it is a direct repudiation of a recent and controlling Supreme Court decision. Proposing such a policy is not a matter of testing the boundaries of the law but of openly defying it. This fundamentally changes the nature of the debate from a discussion of educational policy to a question of the school board's willingness to adhere to the rule of law. The very act of proposing this policy suggests that its motivation is not to create a workable, legally sound educational environment but to make a political statement, irrespective of the severe and predictable legal consequences.

C. Washington State and Issaquah School District's Existing Framework

The candidate's proposal also conflicts with the existing legal and policy framework in Washington state and within the Issaquah School District itself, which already acknowledges a significant role for parents in their children's education.

Washington state law provides a statutory basis for parental rights. RCW 28A.605.005 grants parents the right to access their child's classroom and to "examine the curriculum, textbooks, instructional materials, and supplemental instructional materials".⁸ More specifically, the law provides parents with the explicit right to receive written notice and "opt their child out of comprehensive sexual health education.".⁸ While this statutory opt-out does not extend to all subjects, it establishes a clear legislative precedent for accommodating parental concerns on sensitive topics. The recent passage and implementation of Initiative 2081, the "Parents' Bill of Rights," further solidifies and expands parental rights to access school records and materials, reinforcing the state's policy of parental involvement.⁸

The Issaquah School District's own governance model reflects a commitment to community and parental participation. The district's curriculum adoption process, governed by Regulation 2020 and its associated procedures, is a multi-stage endeavor that explicitly incorporates public input.¹⁰ The process includes surveys of parents, community preview events for proposed materials, a formal public review period, and the inclusion of community members as voting members of the Instructional Materials Committee (IMC).¹⁰ This existing structure, designed to build consensus and ensure transparency, would be fundamentally undermined by the candidate's rigid, top-down policy. The district's regulations on student rights and parental access to records further establish a baseline of partnership that is antithetical to the confrontational nature of a no-opt-out mandate.¹¹

Table 1: Summary of Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) Holding and Key Factors
Legal Principle	Holding from Mahmoud v. Taylor	Direct Implication for ISD Candidate's Policy
Constitutional Right	Parents have a First Amendment Free Exercise right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, which can be burdened by mandatory school curriculum.1	The proposed policy directly infringes upon a constitutionally protected fundamental right affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Legal Standard	When a school policy substantially burdens this right, it is subject to "strict scrutiny." The school must prove a "compelling interest" and that the policy is "narrowly tailored".5	The district would be unable to meet this high legal bar. Administrative convenience is not a compelling interest sufficient to override a constitutional right.1
Scope of Policy	Blanket "no-opt-out" policies are unconstitutional, especially when a district permits opt-outs for other subjects or activities.1	The candidate's proposal is precisely the type of blanket policy that the Supreme Court has explicitly prohibited.
Key Factors for Analysis	The analysis is fact-intensive and must consider: 1. The age of the child (concern is heightened for younger students). 2. The nature of the presentation (neutral information vs. pressure to conform). 3. The existence of other opt-out systems in the district.4	The proposed policy fails on all counts by making no distinctions based on age or content and by ignoring the district's existing accommodations for other topics.

III. The Inevitability of Confrontation: A Multi-Front Analysis

Should the candidate be elected and the proposed no-opt-out policy be enacted, it would not simply be a matter of administrative implementation. It would be an act that guarantees immediate, intense, and multifaceted confrontation—legal, communal, and governmental. The policy is structured not for peaceful governance but for conflict.

A. Legal Confrontation: The Certainty of an Injunction

The first and most predictable consequence of enacting this policy would be an immediate lawsuit filed in federal court. Given the clear and recent precedent of Mahmoud v. Taylor, this lawsuit would not be a speculative, long-shot effort. It would be a targeted legal action with a near-certain outcome.

National advocacy organizations, such as the ACLU and groups representing religious freedom, alongside local parents, would file a complaint seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the policy's enforcement.¹³ To secure a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs must demonstrate, among other things, a "likelihood of success on the merits" of their case. In this instance, demonstrating that likelihood would be a straightforward matter of citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mahmoud. The facts are nearly identical: a public school district, a no-opt-out policy, and curriculum that parents object to on sincerely held religious grounds.

A federal judge, bound by Supreme Court precedent, would have little choice but to grant the preliminary injunction.¹ This would legally prohibit the Issaquah School District from enforcing its no-opt-out policy while the full case proceeds. In effect, the core legal battle would be lost by the district almost immediately. The policy would be rendered legally null and void before it could ever be fully implemented across the district's schools.

B. Community Confrontation: Igniting a Predictable Firestorm

Simultaneously with the legal battle, the policy would ignite a fierce and damaging conflict within the Issaquah community. Rather than fostering an inclusive environment, the policy would act as a powerful catalyst for division, transforming school board meetings into political battlegrounds and polarizing the community along ideological lines, a pattern observed in districts across the country facing similar controversies.¹⁴

This conflict would mobilize two deeply committed factions. On one side, parents and community members would feel their fundamental rights to direct their children's religious upbringing—rights newly and explicitly affirmed by the nation's highest court—are being trampled. Their arguments would center on themes of parental rights, religious freedom, and accusations of government overreach and ideological "indoctrination," echoing the sentiments expressed in similar conflicts like the one in Miami-Dade County.¹⁵

On the other side, supporters of the policy and the inclusive curriculum would argue from a framework of student well-being, equity, and the need to combat anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry.¹⁵ They would contend that allowing opt-outs creates a "chilling effect," stigmatizes LGBTQ+ students and families, and undermines the school's essential mission to create a safe and welcoming environment for every child.¹⁶ They would see the policy as a necessary stand for inclusivity and human rights.

The result of this clash would be a profound erosion of the trust and collaborative spirit between parents, teachers, and administrators that is vital for a successful educational system.¹¹ The district would be consumed by a bitter public dispute, creating a hostile and distracting atmosphere that is detrimental to the learning environment for all students and the professional environment for all staff.¹⁶

C. Governmental Confrontation: The Path to Contempt of Court

The confrontation would escalate to a new and more severe level if the school board, having lost the initial legal battle and been served with a preliminary injunction, chose to defy the court's order. This act of defiance would represent a direct confrontation with the authority of the federal judiciary, setting the stage for serious personal and institutional consequences.

Defying a federal court order is not a political statement; it is a violation of law that triggers contempt of court proceedings.²¹ A federal judge has the power to hold the non-compliant parties—in this case, the Issaquah School District as an entity and its board members as individuals—in contempt. This can take two forms:

• Civil Contempt: This is remedial, designed to coerce compliance with the court's order. Sanctions can include substantial daily fines that accumulate for every day the district remains in violation. For example, a New York court fined former President Trump $10,000 per day in a civil contempt case, totaling $110,000.²³ Such fines would create a crippling and unpredictable drain on the ISD budget.

• Criminal Contempt: This is punitive, designed to punish the act of defiance itself. Sanctions can include fixed fines and, most severely, imprisonment for the officials deemed responsible for the non-compliance.²¹ There is clear precedent for jailing public officials who defy federal court orders, as seen when a Kentucky county clerk was arrested for refusing to issue marriage licenses in defiance of a court mandate.²³

A contempt order is not a request; it is a legal command enforced by the U.S. Marshals Service, an agency of the federal executive branch.²¹ This creates the potential for the deeply damaging spectacle of federal law enforcement officers being dispatched to take action against local school officials, a scenario reminiscent of the most contentious moments of the Civil Rights era desegregation battles.²⁴

This pathway reveals the true nature of the proposed policy. Since it is legally unenforceable from its inception, its primary function cannot be to actually prevent opt-outs. Its purpose, therefore, must be to serve as a political declaration intended to provoke a confrontation. The district, its students, and its taxpayers become instruments in a larger ideological conflict manufactured by the policy itself. This elevates the stakes for board members beyond a simple policy vote. A vote in favor of this policy, and a subsequent vote to defy a court order, is a vote to place one's own personal liberty and financial security at risk. This is not responsible governance; it is a reckless gamble with taxpayer money and personal freedom, constituting a fundamental breach of the duty of care owed by any elected official.

IV. Financial and Operational Risks to the District

Beyond the legal and social firestorms, the candidate's proposed policy would expose the Issaquah School District to severe and cascading financial and operational risks. These risks are not speculative; they are the direct and predictable consequences of pursuing a legally indefensible course of action.

A. Direct Costs of Litigation and Sanctions

The most immediate financial impact would come from the direct costs associated with the guaranteed legal challenges. The district would be obligated to expend significant taxpayer funds on legal fees to defend a policy that has already been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This represents a direct diversion of financial resources from classrooms, teacher salaries, and student support services to a legal battle with a predetermined outcome.

Should the board choose to defy a court injunction, the financial penalties would escalate dramatically. Fines for civil contempt, which could amount to thousands of dollars per day, would create an uncapped and uncontrollable liability, wreaking havoc on the district's budget planning and financial stability.²³ These court-imposed fines are not discretionary expenses that the board can choose to ignore; they are legal obligations that must be paid, forcing cuts to essential educational programs.

Furthermore, the operational costs would be immense. The time, focus, and energy of the superintendent, the school board, and senior administrative staff would be completely consumed by managing the legal crisis, media relations, and community conflict.²⁵ This massive diversion of leadership attention would detract from the core mission of the district: overseeing curriculum development, supporting teachers, and improving student achievement.

B. The Threat to Federal Funding

While direct defiance of a court order is one pathway to sanctions, the underlying policy itself could trigger a separate and equally damaging intervention from the federal government. The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is empowered to enforce federal civil rights laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting race, color, or national origin discrimination) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex discrimination), in any institution that receives federal funding.²⁶ The Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County clarified that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex discrimination, bringing such issues under the purview of Title IX.¹⁷ A policy that is seen as creating a hostile or discriminatory environment for a protected class of students could trigger a formal OCR investigation.

The OCR enforcement process is rigorous. Upon finding a violation, the agency's primary goal is to secure a voluntary resolution agreement with the institution to correct the non-compliant practices.³¹ However, if an institution refuses to comply voluntarily, OCR has the authority to initiate administrative proceedings to terminate its federal financial assistance.²⁸ While the actual termination of funds is a "last resort" measure that has been used very rarely in recent decades, the threat of termination is a powerful tool of coercion, and the investigation process itself is invasive, time-consuming, and costly for a district.³² Recent actions by the Department of Education demonstrate a clear willingness to use the threat of funding loss as leverage to ensure compliance with federal law and policy.³⁴

The Issaquah School District's exposure to this risk is specific and significant. Federal funds constitute 2.23% of the district's total revenue.¹⁹ While this may seem like a small percentage, these are categorical funds that are not easily replaced with local dollars and are targeted at the district's most high-need student populations:

• Title I Funding: These federal funds are specifically directed to schools with higher concentrations of low-income students to provide supplemental academic support, reduce class sizes, and fund parent involvement programs, all with the goal of closing achievement gaps.³⁶

• Special Education (IDEA) Funding: The district serves over 2,000 students with special needs.¹⁹ Federal funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are critical for supplementing state and local funding for these legally mandated services. ISD already uses $17.3 million in local levy dollars to backfill a shortfall in state special education funding; the loss of federal support would exacerbate this financial strain and directly impact services for students with IEPs.¹⁹

• National School Lunch Program: Federal funds also provide essential support for the district's food service program, ensuring that students from low-income families have access to nutritious meals.³⁶

The financial risk of this policy is therefore not distributed evenly across the student population. It is disproportionately concentrated on the district's most vulnerable students. An ideological battle over curriculum would be funded, in effect, by threatening services for low-income children and students with disabilities. This creates a profound ethical and equity crisis, where the political risks taken by the board are directly transferred into a service-delivery crisis for the district's most marginalized communities.

Table 2: Risk Assessment Matrix for Proposed No-Opt-Out Policy
Risk Category	Specific Risk	Likelihood	Severity of Impact	Supporting Evidence
Legal	Lawsuit from Parents/Advocacy Groups	Certain	High	1
	Issuance of Preliminary Injunction	Certain	High	1
	Contempt of Court Proceedings (if injunction is defied)	Highly Likely	Catastrophic	21
Financial	Significant Legal Defense Costs	Certain	High	25
	Court-Imposed Fines for Contempt	Highly Likely	High	23
	OCR Investigation	Possible	Medium	28
	Loss of Federal Title I / IDEA Funding	Unlikely, but Possible	Catastrophic	33
Operational	Diversion of Leadership Focus	Certain	High	25
	Staff Morale Collapse / Teacher "Chilling Effect"	Highly Likely	High	6
Reputational	Intense Community Division and Conflict	Certain	High	14
	Damage to District's Reputation	Certain	High	24

Table 3: Federal Funding Streams at Risk in Issaquah School District
Federal Program	Purpose	ISD Population Served	Impact of Funding Loss
Title I, Part A	Provides financial assistance to schools with high numbers or percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards.37	Students in designated Title I schools within ISD.36	Loss of supplemental instructional staff, tutoring programs, and resources designed to close the achievement gap for economically disadvantaged students.37
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B	Ensures that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs.40	Over 2,000 ISD students receiving specially designed instruction.19	Reduced ability to provide legally mandated services, potential for larger class sizes for special needs students, and an increased burden on local levy funds to cover the shortfall.19
National School Lunch Program	Provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or no-cost lunches to children each school day.36	Students who qualify for free and reduced-price meals based on family income.	Inability to provide affordable, nutritious meals, which can negatively impact student health, well-being, and academic readiness.

V. Assessing Motivation: Ideological Imperative vs. The Good of the District

When evaluating any proposed policy for a public institution, the central question must be whether it serves the well-being of that institution and its constituents. A school board's primary responsibility is to act in the best interest of the district it governs. An analysis of the candidate's no-opt-out policy through this lens reveals a stark disconnect between the policy's predictable outcomes and the fundamental duties of school board stewardship.

A. Defining "The Good of the District"

To provide an objective assessment, it is necessary to establish a clear framework for what constitutes a policy that is for the "good of the district." Such a policy should, at a minimum, meet the following four essential criteria:

1. Be Legally Compliant: The policy must adhere to the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, state statutes, and all controlling legal precedents.

2. Be Fiscally Responsible: The policy must protect the district's financial stability, steward taxpayer resources effectively, and avoid exposing the district to unnecessary and foreseeable financial liabilities.

3. Advance the Educational Mission: The policy should enhance, or at the very least not impede, the district's core mission to provide a high-quality education, improve learning outcomes, and support the well-being of all students.

4. Foster Community Cohesion: The policy should seek to build trust and promote a positive, collaborative environment among students, parents, staff, and the broader community.

B. Weighing the Policy Against the Framework

When the proposed no-opt-out policy is measured against these foundational criteria, it fails unequivocally on every count.

• Legal Compliance: The policy is a manifest failure on this criterion. As detailed extensively in Section II, it is in direct and unambiguous violation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor. To enact it would be to knowingly and willfully violate the established constitutional rights of district families.

• Fiscal Responsibility: The policy is catastrophically irresponsible from a fiscal standpoint. As outlined in Section IV, it invites immense and unavoidable costs from litigation and court-imposed sanctions while simultaneously placing critical federal revenue streams at risk. It is a blueprint for financial crisis, not fiscal stewardship.

• Educational Mission: The policy actively undermines the district's educational mission. It would divert massive resources, time, and leadership focus away from instruction and student support. The resulting "chilling effect" could lead to a narrowing of the curriculum for all students, while the potential loss of federal funds would directly degrade essential services for the district's most vulnerable learners.

• Community Cohesion: The policy is inherently and profoundly divisive. As analyzed in Section III, it is guaranteed to create the kind of bitter, intractable community conflict that poisons the educational environment, erodes trust, and makes constructive partnership impossible.

C. Conclusion on Motivation

Given that the proposed policy is demonstrably and foreseeably detrimental to the Issaquah School District on every practical, legal, and financial measure, it cannot be reasonably characterized as a policy designed for the "good of the district." Its certain negative consequences so vastly outweigh any purported educational benefit that its motivation must be sought elsewhere.

The policy's primary function appears to be symbolic and political. It is a declaration of a specific ideological stance on a contentious cultural issue. The severe, negative consequences for the district—the legal defeats, the financial costs, the community division, and the harm to vulnerable students—are treated as acceptable collateral damage in service of making this political statement. This represents a form of performative governance that prioritizes ideological expression over the fundamental duties of stewardship, care, and prudence owed to the school district, its employees, its students, and the taxpayers who fund it.

VI. Strategic Recommendations

For community members, parents, and current district leaders concerned about the potential impact of this policy, a proactive and strategic response is essential. The following recommendations are offered as a pathway to mitigate the risks posed by this proposal:

• Public Education Campaign: Develop and disseminate clear, accessible informational materials (such as fact sheets and presentations) for the broader community. These materials should explain the controlling legal precedent of Mahmoud v. Taylor in simple terms and use district-specific data, like that presented in Table 3, to illustrate the concrete financial risks to Issaquah's schools and students.

• Coalition Building: Form a broad-based coalition of stakeholders—including parents, teachers, local business leaders, faith leaders, and community groups—to advocate for legally compliant and fiscally responsible governance. A diverse coalition can more effectively demonstrate that opposition to the policy is not based on a single viewpoint but on a shared commitment to the well-being of the school district.

• Legal Preparedness: Proactively engage with legal counsel to prepare for a swift legal challenge. This should include drafting a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction that can be filed immediately should the candidate be elected and move to implement the policy. Being prepared will ensure the harmful policy can be halted with minimal delay.

• Advocacy at Board Meetings: Organize and prepare clear, concise, and evidence-based testimony for presentation at school board meetings. This advocacy should focus on the tangible, predictable harms of the policy—the legal costs, the financial risks, the community division—to shift the public debate from abstract ideological arguments to the concrete consequences for students and taxpayers in the Issaquah School District.

Works cited

1. U.S. Supreme Court Decision Impacts Parental Opt-Out Rights for ..., accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.dwkesq.com/u-s-supreme-court-decision-impacts-parental-opt-out-rights-for-religious-beliefs/

2. Mahmoud v. Taylor - Wikipedia, accessed October 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_v._Taylor

3. Supreme Court Clarifies Right of Parents to Opt-Out of Curriculum that Does Not Align with Religious Beliefs | Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.f3law.com/insights/supreme-court-clarifies-right-of-parents-to-opt-out-of-curriculum-that-does-not-align-with-religious-beliefs/

4. U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision on Parent Opt-Out Rights - Michigan Association of School Boards, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.masb.org/about-masb/news-center/detail/2025/07/08/us-supreme-court-issues-decision-on-parent-opt-out-rights

5. Free Exercise of Religion at School: The Supreme Court's Mahmoud v. Taylor Ruling | Congress.gov, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11360

6. Mahmoud v. Taylor | The First Amendment Encyclopedia - Free Speech Center, accessed October 9, 2025, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/mahmoud-v-taylor/

7. Supreme Court Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor - Laws & Regulations (CA Dept of Education), accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/mt/

8. Chapter 28A.605 RCW: PARENT ACCESS - | WA.gov, accessed October 9, 2025, https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.605&full=true

9. Implementation of I-2081, the Parents' Bill of Rights - OSPI, accessed October 9, 2025, https://ospi.k12.wa.us/data-reporting/protecting-student-privacy/implementation-i-2081-parents-bill-rights

10. Curriculum Selection Process - Issaquah School District 411, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.isd411.org/academics/academics-overview/curriculum-selection-process

11. 3200 - Rights and Responsibilities - Issaquah School District 411, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.isd411.org/about-us/regulations/3000-series/3200

12. 3126 - Child Custody - Issaquah School District 411, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.isd411.org/about-us/regulations/3000-series/3126

13. Supreme Court Requires Religious Opt-Outs from Secular Lessons in Public Schools | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-requires-religious-opt-outs-from-secular-lessons-in-public-schools

14. Supreme Court weighs parents' right to opt kids out of LGBTQ curriculum - Chalkbeat, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/2025/04/18/supreme-court-weighs-parents-rights-to-opt-out-of-lgbtq-school-curriculum/

15. Local School Boards and LGBTQ Policy Decisions: A Qualitative ..., accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5118/4/3/28

16. “Like Walking Through a Hailstorm”: Discrimination Against LGBT Youth in US Schools | HRW, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/12/07/walking-through-hailstorm/discrimination-against-lgbt-youth-us-schools

17. BOARD OF EDUCATION RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, it is the right of every child, regardless of gender identity, gender expression, int, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/sample-board-resolution-for-lgbtq-issues-updated.pdf

18. Supporting LGBTQ+ Students - Professional Learning (CA Dept of Education), accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/pl/supportlgbtq.asp

19. Finances - Issaquah School District 411, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.isd411.org/about-us/reports-and-surveys/annual-community-report/finances

20. Actions against LGBTQ+ students also threaten K-12 teachers - Brookings Institution, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/actions-against-lgbtq-students-also-threaten-k-12-teachers/

21. Enforcement of Court Orders Against the Executive Branch ..., accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11271

22. The Contempt Power of the Federal Courts | Federal Judicial Center, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.fjc.gov/history/work-courts/contempt-power-federal-courts

23. What Courts Can Do If the Trump Administration Defies Court Orders | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-courts-can-do-if-trump-administration-defies-court-orders

24. Executive Enforcement of Judicial Orders | Federal Judicial Center, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforcement-judicial-orders

25. Trump just withheld $7 billion in education grants. Now what? - Wipfli LLP, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.wipfli.com/insights/articles/edu-op-trump-just-withheld-7-billion-in-education-grants-now-what

26. Civil Rights Laws | U.S. Department of Education, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws

27. Regulations Enforced by the Office for Civil Rights | U.S. Department of Education, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ocr/regulations-enforced-by-the-office-for-civil-rights

28. Civil Rights at School: Agency Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | Congress.gov, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45665

29. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) - U.S. Department of Education, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ocr

30. Education and Title VI | U.S. Department of Education, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/race-color-and-national-origin-discrimination/education-and-title-vi

31. OCR Issues Guidance on Title VI Compliance for Districts | AASA, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.aasa.org/resources/blog/ocr-issues-guidance-on-title-vi-compliance-for-districts

32. OCR, DEI and Connecticut Schools – Sorting Through a Legal Minefield: Pullman & Comley, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.pullcom.com/education-law-notes/ocr-dei-and-connecticut-schools-sorting-through-a-legal-minefield

33. Despite threats, withholding federal school funds is easier said than done - Chalkbeat, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/2025/02/27/despite-threats-withholding-federal-funds-from-schools-is-hard/

34. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in Light of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (PDF) - U.S. Department of Education, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf

35. U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Sends Letters to 60 Universities Under Investigation for Antisemitic Discrimination and Harassment, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-sends-letters-60-universities-under-investigation-antisemitic-discrimination-and-harassment

36. Revenue - Issaquah School District 411, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.isd411.org/about-us/reports-and-surveys/annual-community-report/finances/revenue

37. Title I Funding: Guide To Maximize Funding For Schools, accessed October 9, 2025, https://educationwalkthrough.com/title-i-funding/

38. Fast Facts: Title I (158) - National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), accessed October 9, 2025, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158

39. Expenditures - Issaquah School District 411, accessed October 9, 2025, https://www.isd411.org/about-us/reports-and-surveys/annual-community-report/finances/expenditures

40. Special Education Funding In Washington State - OSPI, accessed October 9, 2025, https://ospi.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/special-education-funding-and-finance/special-education-funding-washington-state