100 Years Ago, The Supreme Court Recognized Parental Rights. They Need To Do The Same Today
THE SUPREME COURT — One hundred years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that parents have the fundamental right to raise and educate their children, and that the government cannot force its schools on them.
In 1925, when Pierce v. Society of Sisters was decided, government-run schools were likely not the potent kinds of indoctrination mills they are infamously known as today, but that does not mean the government did not still want to control the upbringing of America’s children.
The case arose from Oregon’s Compulsory Education Act of 1922, which would have forced parents to send their children, ages eight through 16, to a public school and not allow for any alternatives.
On June 1, 1925, the Supreme Court answered that proposition with an unequivocal “no.”
“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 high court held. “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.”
Commemorating this decision is what brought Education Secretary Linda McMahon, along with parental rights advocacy groups Moms for Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Defending Education, and several members of Congress to the Supreme Court steps Tuesday.
“Special interests and progressive activists still try to agitate for the government to override moms and dads in education — whether it’s through ideological indoctrination, sexually explicit curriculum, or hiding health and safety risks from parents,” McMahon said. “The progressive left always wants to come between you and your kids.”
Yet, despite the 1925 recognition of rights, government encroachment has only gotten worse. School districts across the country are trying to put pornography in front of children, claim that there are more than two sexes, hide claimed “gender identities” from parents, and usurp a parent’s involvement with their child’s upbringing and well-being.
The Supreme Court must once again say “no.”
At least two cases before the Supreme Court now give the justices the opportunity to again recognize the fundamental rights it protected for parents in 1925: Mahmoud v. Taylor and United States v. Skrmetti.
Skrmetti may be the most widely watched case before the court this term, as it arose from the Biden administration suing Tennessee over a 2023 law to ban puberty blockers and hormone replacement for children who claim to be “transgender.” The high court will be tasked with deciding whether states can block the harmful interventions for children — and at least one justice already appeared to throw cold water on the challenge during oral argument.
In an event with Linda McMahon last month, a group of detransitioners shared how schools and their so-called “affirming” staffs are ground zero for encouraging children to seek medical interventions for “transition.”
“Social transition — changing names, pronouns, school records — it seems harmless, but it often initiates a trajectory that is challenging to stop once begun,” Claire Abernathy, 20, who was put on testosterone to transition to a boy after her 14th birthday, said at the time. “My school affirmed this identity without informing my parents, they started calling me a new name and pronouns, and letting me use the boys’ bathroom and locker rooms, and this immediate affirmation led me swiftly into medicalization.”
Kristen Waggoner, president of ADF, highlighted such cases in her speech in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
“Consider the story of ADF clients Dan and Jennifer Mead. Their school district in Michigan treated their daughter as a boy, without their knowledge or consent. School staff referred to her by a male name and pronouns — all while using her real name with her parents to deceive them,” she said. “This deception was a matter of school policy. They only discovered it when the school failed to switch back their daughter’s name on a report that was sent home. As good parents, they withdrew their daughter. They then sued the school district. And while Dan was able to quit his job to homeschool their daughter, not every family has the means to do that.”
She spoke of another ADF client whose 12-year-old daughter went to a school counselor for anxiety and depression, but was instead treated like a boy and referred to doctors in order to “transition” her.
In Mahmoud, parents in Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools were blocked from opting their young children out of being exposed to far-left gender theory. As plaintiffs noted, the school introduced so-called “LGBTQ-inclusive” children’s books for its curriculum in 2022, but announced it would no longer notify parents of the material or allow them to opt their children out in 2023. Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents sued.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the parents, explained how the material advocates for gay “pride,” children identifying as “transgender,” and that a child’s gender identity can change at any given moment.
The case is not even going as far as to ask to change the curriculum, but rather to allow parents to remove their children from the instruction — something the county otherwise provides for “virtually everything else under the sun,” Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris said during oral argument.
As The Federalist reported, one of the attorneys for the county actually admitted in oral argument that the number of parents requesting an opt-out from the curriculum — both from religious and non-religious perspectives — was so high that the schools could not logistically find classroom alternatives for all the kids who would need them.
Many of the justices seemed skeptical of Montgomery County’s policy, to the point that left-wing Justice Elana Kagan independently pointed out that even non-religious parents “weren’t all that thrilled” with the curriculum.
On the steps of the Court, McMahon pointed to three priorities of the Trump administration in advancing and protecting parental rights: “School choice: giving parents the power to select education options that align with their values and their children’s needs, FERPA rights: ensuring schools can’t keep parents in the dark about their child’s educational information and well-being,” and “local control: ensuring that education is in the hands of those closest to the child.”
Breccan F. Thies is a correspondent for The Federalist. He previously covered education and culture issues for the Washington Examiner and Breitbart News. He holds a degree from the University of Virginia and is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. You can follow him on X: @BreccanFThies.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.