Over the past several years, as woke indoctrination overtook academic institutions and public schools pushed parents to the sidelines, the battle for parental rights rose to the forefront of the American political conversation. But this conflict isn’t new – in fact, the US Supreme Court’s first major ruling on parental rights dates back to 1925. That landmark ruling from 100 years ago will play a role in two pivotal cases before the Court today.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Although the landscape of the American education system a century ago was vastly different from what we face today, the Court’s decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters is still relevant to the cases before the Court this summer.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters centered around Oregon’s Compulsory Education Act of 1922, which mandated that all children, from eight to 16, must attend a government-run public school – no other options allowed. This law effectively made private schools and homeschooling illegal. The Society of Sisters, a Catholic school system, challenged the law, arguing that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by infringing upon parents’ fundamental right to raise and educate their children as they see fit.
In June 1925, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Society of Sisters, establishing a powerful precedent that parental rights are indeed a fundamental right.
“The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only,” the Court ruled. “The child is not a mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
Mahmoud v. Taylor
In April, Mahmoud v. Taylor tasked the US Supreme Court with deciding “whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.”
The case concerns Montgomery County Public Schools’ “inclusive” reading program that forced children to read books promoting transgenderism such as Trinity’s Rainbow and Born Ready, both of which tell the story of children who “switch genders.”
“The children were told that when you are born, the doctors make a ‘guess’ about whether you are a boy or a girl, but sometimes the doctors guess wrong, and then, when you are four or five years old, you have to tell your parents that the doctors guessed wrong,” Dr. Leonard Sax wrote for the Institute for Family Studies.
Needless to say, parents were outraged by this radical indoctrination. A group of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish families sued the district after their request to opt their children out of the program was denied. Their case was eventually appealed to the US Supreme Court.
When the case was heard on April 22 of this year, the plaintiffs’ legal representation argued that the program was “an unconstitutional infringement on the parents’ First Amendment right of free exercise of their religion.” The Court is expected to issue a ruling this month.
United States v. Skrmetti
In December 2024, the US Supreme Court began reviewing the consequential Tennessee case United States v. Skrmetti, which will determine if states are constitutionally allowed to enact bans on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. Pro-LGBT activists are using Skrmetti as a false front for parental rights, claiming that parents have a fundamental right to subject their children to dangerous medical interventions, and that banning such procedures is unconstitutional.
Parents do not have the right to harm their child. Parents have the right to protect their children, direct the upbringing and education of their children, and instill their religious and moral values in their children – they do not have the right to harm them. This foundational principle has been commonly understood for centuries and exists within the fabric of society. Simply because activists have termed dangerous medical interventions as “care” does not erase the inherent danger of puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and genital mutilation.
During oral arguments, the justices did not seem to entertain the argument that parents have a right to subject their healthy children to “experimental medical procedures with demonstrated risks and unproven benefits.” As the Court noted in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, parents have the right and duty to “nurture” their children – not the right to harm them.
The Court is expected to issue a ruling later this month, which will determine if South Dakota and 25 other states can continue protecting children from radical transgender medication and procedures.
We are strong advocates of parental rights, but like every constitutional right, it has its limits based on common sense and natural law. We hope this knowledge equips you to stand up for what you believe and defend your values in the public square.
