The Parents Rights Supreme Court

Following President Donald Trump’s appointment of three originalist justices during his first term, cementing a 6-3 conservative majority on the bench, the Supreme Court has delivered a historic slate of rulings on critical issues like religious liberty, the right to life, and the right to keep and bear arms. But when the judicial history of this era is written, no legacy may ultimately be more important than this Court’s defense of parental rights.

Three rulings at the end of this past term in particular have enshrined parental rights in Supreme Court precedent and paved the way for lawmakers at the state and federal level to protect children from radical gender ideology and inappropriate sexual content.

The first ruling came on June 18 in United States v. Skrmetti. In that case, the Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines to uphold a Tennessee law banning doctors from prescribing or administering cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, or surgeries to gender-confused kids. As a result, at least 26 other states will be able to implement similar laws protecting children.

In perhaps the most systematic takedown of gender ideology to date, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, dismantled the left-wing narrative that lawmakers and doctors must blindly trust self-anointed “experts” who claim that prescribing chemical castration drugs to kids as young as eight constitutes “life-saving care.”

As whistleblowers have exposed, medical professionals in particular will often tell parents that their gender-confused kids will surely commit suicide unless they agree to “transition” them (which the evidence says is not true, but even if it were, it only underscores the underlying mental health issues associated with gender confusion).

“States are never required to substitute expert opinion for their legislative judgment, and, when the experts appear to have compromised their credibility, it makes good sense to chart a different course,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. “In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct.”

In a disappointing moment, the Court’s three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Jackson, dissented from the majority ruling. (Notably, neither Kagan nor Sotomayor have children). However, even the confused and ranting minority opinion unintentionally delivered yet another victory for opponents of gender ideology, as it further exposed how radical and irrational it is to argue in favor of chemically castrating and surgically mutilating confused children.

Critics of the Skrmetti ruling will undoubtedly claim that it actually infringes on parental rights by prohibiting parents from seeking out so-called “gender-affirming care” for their children. But a more accurate interpretation is that this ruling will empower parents to say “no” to the toxic pressure of ideologically compromised medical professionals, therapists, and teachers trying to get them to sign off on such “treatments” for their children.

Moreover, as the Court’s majority recognized, it is absurd to suggest that parental rights should have no limit. After all, no one would accept that it is okay for parents to give their young children alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. Permanent, life-altering drugs and surgeries that have the potential to cause serious harm and serve no legitimate medical purpose are, if anything, more dangerous.

The Skrmetti ruling received praise from medical reform groups such as Do No Harm. Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb thanked the Court for upholding Tennessee’s “commonsense policies that protect children from dangerous medical procedures.” Likewise, Executive Director Kristina Rasmussen said the decision is “a massive win in the fight to protect children from harmful gender ideology.”

The Founding Freedoms Law Center, meanwhile, called the ruling “a resounding victory for the protection of children and parental rights nationwide.”

“The Court’s ruling is a hopeful signal to parents and lawmakers across the country: States have a legitimate interest in safeguarding children from life-changing, irreversible harm,” the group noted.

The Court would reaffirm this principle – that states should be able to protect kids from harm and empower parents to do so – in two subsequent rulings on June 27.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of school curricula dealing with sexual or other mature topics, specifically LGBTQ-related material. That case specifically centered on a Montgomery County, Maryland, school district policy which forced students to read LGBTQ-themed books and did not give parents the option to opt out.

As Justice Alito wrote for the 6-3 majority, the books in question in the case undoubtedly sought to impose an ideological agenda on very young kids who were not able to or did not feel comfortable challenging their teacher. “The books are unmistakably normative,” Justice Alito wrote. “They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

“The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned ‘love each other,’” Alito continued.

Parents, of course, are the primary educators of their children, as advocacy groups pointed out in their statements of support. “This ruling establishes clearly that parents have a right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, which includes the ability to protect their children from instructional material that promotes certain values and beliefs that contradict their religious values and beliefs,” the America First Policy Institute wrote.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, called the decision “a roaring victory for parents in public schools.”

Turley further criticized Justice Sotomayor for saying the ruling will cause “chaos” in public schools. Instead, Turley notes, the decision could help public schools by insulating them from politics. “This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities,” he wrote for The Hill.

On the same day, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law which requires age verification to view online pornography in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.

The concept at work in the ruling is simple – kids should not be exposed to graphic sexual content, and states have a right to mandate that websites disseminating such content do more to ensure children do not gain access to it.

“The power to require age verification is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority in the case.

Justice Thomas added the history of the First Amendment does not preclude the state from taking reasonable steps to protect kids from explicit content. He wrote that states can prohibit “outright speech that is obscene to the public at large, and they may prevent children from accessing speech that is obscene to children.”

“States have a specific interest in protecting children from sexually explicit speech,” he continued.

Policy experts praised this ruling, with the Heritage Foundation’s Annie Tutor calling the decision “a historic victory for the fight to protect children from obscenity.” Likewise, Clare Morell with the Ethics and Public Policy Center said, “society is incredibly comfortable with enacting fair age restrictions in order to protect our children.”

But the biggest winner from the ruling may ultimately be parents. With pornography more accessible than ever before, parents have found it more and more difficult to ensure their children aren’t exposed to graphic, often violent sexual imagery. Now, states have a clear runway to pass laws giving parents more tools to ensure their kids don’t access inappropriate content.

The victories this term show that the Court is moving back toward upholding traditional values and protecting the all-important right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. While the Court’s three liberal justices may bemoan this development, the Court’s 6-3 majority, like the majority of Americans, understands that it is long overdue.

Matt Lamb is a contributor for AMAC Newsline and an associate editor for The College Fix. He previously worked for Students for Life of America, Students for Life Action, and Turning Point USA. He previously interned for Open the Books. His writing has also appeared in the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, LifeSiteNews, Human Life Review, Headline USA, and other outlets. The opinions expressed are his own. Follow him @mattlamb22 on X.