Parental Rights in Education on Trial in Back-to-Back Showdowns at the Supreme Court 

The ideological war over parents’ fundamental rights to control their children’s education faced off at the United States Supreme Court this term in two cases — one of which has already been decided, and another that will be by the end of this month. Liberty Counsel filed amicus briefs in both.

This shouldn’t even be a conversation, since the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this obvious reality and upheld parental authority in multiple cases throughout U.S. history.

In 2000, the Court wrote in Troxel v. Granville, “The interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” That decision echoed the High Court’s opinion exactly a century ago when it affirmed that parents and guardians have the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (1925).

In other words, “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.”

This fundamental right to guide their child’s education and upbringing has been both respected and implied for generations. But as of late, it has been floundering as the state seeks to usurp parents’ rightful authority in this area.

That Time Catholics and Muslims Agreed  

Mahmoud v. Taylor, for which the Court heard oral arguments in late April and in which a decision is pending, shines a spotlight on how the constitutional issue of parental rights transcends political, cultural, and religious differences. At its core, it is about the constitutional obligation to protect the right to direct and shield one’s offspring from destructive and harmful influences and ideologies, even if those decisions conflict with a state’s chosen messages.

At the center of the case is a group of Maryland parents from diverse religious backgrounds (including Islamic, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox) who challenged a Montgomery County Public Schools policy prohibiting them from opting their children out of obscene and sexual content for kids as young as three through middle school. And, if that were not shocking enough, the school district poured salt in their constitutional wounds by adopting another policy that muzzled teachers from even notifying the parents that sexually explicit material would be taught.

The parents argued this instruction interferes with their religious beliefs on gender and sexuality, as well as their constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing and education. Because it does.

The content in question included more than “22 LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks infused with radical gender ideology, such as the false idea of “gender transitions,” “pride” parades, and same-sex romances between minors. Montgomery County has replaced the heroic tales of Odysseus and Achilles with “Pride Puppy,” who valiantly goes around a pride parade looking for leather bondage materials. Classical education, it is not.

Montgomery County prohibited parents from rejecting this tale of a bondage-seeking dog, but the same school district permits opt-outs for a whole host of other school activities such as birthdays or holidays “viewed by others as having religious overtones.” Homer’s out and homosexual bondage is in for Montgomery County’s schoolchildren.

Neither students nor parents surrender their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from subjecting minor children to grossly inappropriate sexual material about which their parents have sincere religious objections. This means that the government cannot prohibit parents from opting their children out of material hostile to their religious beliefs and then conceal those efforts with a policy that keeps teachers from even notifying them about it.

The fact that public schools are willing to go to the Supreme Court to assert their “dominance” over the parents’ relationship with their children says a lot. For Montgomery County Public Schools, it is no longer instruction but indoctrination. The First Amendment prohibits that, which is why the Supreme Court must reject this radical reversal of the oldest fundamental right in the Republic.

Catholic-Run Public Charter School Left Out of the School Choice Playground  

It’s no secret that the American public school system is failing. By nearly every metric, public schools nationwide are underperforming, unaccountable, and increasingly out of touch with the families they purport to serve. Indeed, as Montgomery County proved above, public schools are attempting to force sexual and “transgender” ideologies into the minds of young children, over the objections of parents. In response, families are fleeing public schools in droves and turning to alternatives that better serve their children’s needs. They are wise to do so.

Here’s where the significance of Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond comes in. School choice is non-negotiable, but the Sooner State excluded a Catholic public charter school from receiving public funding due to its religious affiliation. On May 22, the Supreme Court deadlocked in a 4-4 vote (with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself). This means the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling stands, and the Catholic public charter school can’t receive public funding.

As our amicus brief argued in this case, parents, not the government, bear the primary responsibility for directing their children’s education, as the High Court has affirmed in multiple cases. Put simply: Once a state provides a benefit for private education, it cannot exclude religious institutions, according to Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Comer (2017) — or public institutions run by religious organizations. The Supreme Court will inevitably be asked to revisit the charter school funding issue in the near future, as that is not going away, and it should reaffirm the long line of precedent it neglected in Drummond.

In fact, the Supreme Court just recently rejected Maine’s similar prohibition on providing funding for parents who seek to send their children to private religious institutions when the state made that funding available for secular private schools.

To do so would plainly run afoul of the Establishment Clause and substantially burden the parents’ religious beliefs in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

Parents, not the government, are the primary stakeholders in their children’s education. The Court must uphold this fundamental right. Nothing less than the Republic’s future hangs in the balance.

Daniel Schmid is a constitutional attorney and the associate vice president of legal affairs at Liberty Counsel.