Last week, the Supreme Court heard Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case that exposes a glaring injustice in America’s public school system.

During the proceedings, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a stunningly tone-deaf remark, suggesting that religious families concerned about their free exercise rights being violated by public schools shouldn’t worry — they can simply send their kids to private school or homeschool.

That’s easy for her to say. Justice Jackson sent her own children to Georgetown Day School, where tuition nears $60,000 a year, a cost that rivals Harvard University. For most families, this isn’t an option; it’s a fantasy.

Her flippant comment inadvertently revealed a harsh reality: religious families are forced to fund a public school system they cannot use if they want an education aligned with their faith, all while being bound by compulsory education laws. This setup is discrimination, plain and simple.

Imagine if Jackson argued that public schools could discriminate against other groups — say, based on race — because parents could just opt out. That proposal would rightly be shot down. So why do some liberals think it’s acceptable to dismiss religious families’ rights? School choice is the answer to this injustice, ensuring all families can access an education that respects their values.

The public school system, as it stands, functions as a monopoly that disproportionately harms religious families. If you’re a parent — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise — who believes your child’s education should reflect your deeply held beliefs, you face a brutal choice. You can send your child to a public school, where the curriculum or environment may conflict with your spiritual or moral convictions, or you can pay out of pocket for a private religious school or homeschooling.

But you’re already taxed to support the public system, whether you use it or not. This double taxation is a direct violation of fairness. Religious families aren’t just paying for a service they don’t use; they’re being coerced into subsidizing a system that undermines their worldview.

Compulsory education laws make this trap even tighter. Every state mandates that children attend school until a certain age. For religious families, this means they’re legally obligated to engage with an education system that may contradict their beliefs.

Imagine being forced to send your child to a school that teaches ideas you find morally or spiritually objectionable, with no realistic alternative unless you’re wealthy enough to afford private school tuition. Justice Jackson’s privilege — affording Georgetown Day School’s exorbitant costs — blinds her to the reality most families face. The median US household income is about $80,000; a $60,000 tuition bill isn’t a choice — it’s an impossibility. Her suggestion that families can just opt out ignores the financial and legal barriers that make such options inaccessible for millions.

Systemic bias in a government system you’re forced to interact with isn’t just unfair; it’s a violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. But, some progressives seem to shrug off this particular discrimination as inconsequential. Consider the absurdity of applying Jackson’s logic to other groups. If public schools discriminated against students based on race, would anyone accept the argument that families could simply homeschool or pay for private school?

Of course not. Such a policy would be condemned as a violation of civil rights. So why is it deemed acceptable for public schools to disregard the religious beliefs of families, forcing them to either comply or bear crippling financial burdens?

The double standard is glaring. This selective indifference reveals a troubling bias: some progressives prioritize certain protected classes while dismissing the rights of the religious as secondary.

Religious families aren’t asking for special treatment — they’re asking for the same consideration we extend to others with unique needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) offers a clear precedent. Under IDEA, if a public school cannot meet the needs of a student with disabilities, the district must cover the cost of a private school that can. This acknowledges that one-size-fits-all education doesn’t work for every child.

Why not apply the same logic to religious families? If a public school’s curriculum or environment conflicts with a family’s sincerely held beliefs, they should be able to redirect their children’s taxpayer-funded education dollars to a school — public or private, religious or not — that aligns with their values.

School choice is the solution. Programs like education savings accounts, vouchers, or tax-credit scholarships empower families to choose schools that best meet their needs.

Forcing religious families to fund a system they can’t use while denying them alternatives isn’t neutrality — it’s discrimination. School choice levels the playing field, ensuring that all families, not just the wealthy like Justice Jackson, can access an education that respects their beliefs.

School choice also aligns with the principles of a free society. The government doesn’t force families to use public hospitals or grocery stores, recognizing individual choice in critical areas. Education, which shapes a child’s worldview, should be no different. Religious families aren’t trying to dismantle public schools; they want the freedom to opt out, or choose differently, without financial penalty. We already apply this logic to students with special needs through IDEA. Extending it to religious families would ensure the public school system doesn’t trample their constitutional rights.

Mahmoud v. Taylor is a wake-up call. Religious families deserve better than being trapped in a system that dismisses their values. Justice Jackson’s accidental case for school choice — highlighting the privilege of opting out — should spur action.

School choice should be expanded nationwide, giving every family the power to choose an education that honors their beliefs. Just as we reject discrimination against other groups, we must reject it against religious families.