The Dispatch: More from CWR...

SCOTUS kicks the can down the road on parental rights

Controversy continues to as courts stand Pierce on its ear in disputes over the rights of parents to be informed about and address situations arising when their minor children living at home claim to be transgender.

Columns at the United States Supreme Court building. (Photo: Jesse Collins / Unsplash) 

In 1925, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus and Mary, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of faith-based schools to operate along with those of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. While Pierce remains the standard governing faith-based schools, its viability concerning parental rights is debatable in disputes involving minor children claiming to be transgender.

In Pierce, officials of a Catholic school and the Hill Military Academy challenged Oregon’s new compulsory attendance statute. Motivated in part by anti-Catholic bias, the law directed parents of children between the ages of eight and sixteen, other than those needing what is now called special education, to send them to public schools.

After the federal trial, Oregon prevented the statute from taking effect; the Justices unanimously affirmed in favor of the owners because enforcing it would have undermined their ability to run their schools while greatly diminishing the value of their property.

Turning to parental rights, the Pierce Court famously reasoned that “[t]he child is not the 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.” The Justices thereby invalidated the statute for “unreasonably interfere[ing] with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”

Advocates have relied on Pierce in advancing parental rights to educational choice, culminating in cases granting increased aid to students and their faith-based schools. For example, in 2022 in Carson v. Makin. the Supreme Court invalidated a Maine statute excluding “sectarian,” or faith-based, schools from a program providing tuition payments to parents for students who lived in districts lacking secondary schools because it was neither neutral toward religion nor, echoing Pierce, did it protect parental rights to choose where their children attended school. In a related case, officials in a faith-based school in Maine are challenging a change in the law that denies the school the ability to participate in the program because of its beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the same time, controversy rages over parental rights as courts stand Pierce on its ear in disputes over the rights of parents to be informed about and address situations arising when their minor children living at home claim to be transgender. For instance, Christian parents in Montana allegedly lost custody of, and contact with, their fourteen-year-old daughter who experienced mental health issues and a desire for attention because “their “values, morals, and…religious beliefs” prevented them from allowing her to undergo experimental transitioning medicalization. It is astounding that minors who cannot typically accept so much as an aspirin from school nurses without approval can be subjected, without parental consent, to potentially life-alerting treatments for which they are likely unprepared.

In non-religion-based disagreements, fathers in New York and California lost custody of their now eight- and five-year-old sons, respectively, for refusing to consent to allowing their ex-wives to transition their children or to affirm their supposed gender identities. Conversely, a court in California upheld a board policy requiring educational officials to notify parents if their children wish to be identified by a gender other than what is listed on their official birth records.

In M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, a high profile case I recently discussed here at CWR, litigation arose after an anorexic, then sixteen-year-old (now adult) son (“A.C.”) informed his Roman Catholic parents he identified as female. The parents objected because they believe God creates each person as immutably male or female and that raising children according to their biological sexes is best for them. An appellate court affirmed that even though the parents were fit, A.C. could be removed from home and placed in foster care—barring them from even discussing A.C.’s transgender identity during visitations.

In a blow to parental rights, on March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court rejected the parents’ appeal in M.C. and J.C., without commenting or explaining why. Refusing to clarify parental rights, the Justices essentially kicked the can down the road, not explaining whether they refused to intervene because A.C. is now over eighteen and emancipated or they did not view the issue as “ripe” for review.

The upshot is that parents may now be left at the mercy of educators who interfere with their fundamental, God-given right to care for their young, impressionable children, denying them the opportunity to share their Christian beliefs as they deem fit.

Hopefully, when dealing with the rapidly changing and often incoherent landscape of current sexual morality, courts and legislatures will re-affirm parental rights to direct the upbringing and educations of their young children, which Pierce eloquently addressed. Judges and lawmakers must resolve whether, and under what circumstances (if any), educators and public officials may intervene or if parents, absent proof of unfitness, remain the primary caregivers of their minor children, until they are free to live independently and make their own life choices.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Charles J. Russo 49 Articles
Charles J. Russo, M.Div., J.D., Ed.D., Joseph Panzer Chair of Education in the School of Education and Health Sciences (SEHS), Director of SEHS’s Ph.D. Program in Educational Leadership, and Research Professor of Law in the School of Law at the University of Dayton, OH, specializes in issues involving education and the law with a special focus on religious freedom. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Notre Dame University of Australia School of Law, Sydney Campus. He can be reached at crusso1@udayton.edu. All views expressed herein are exclusively his own.

2 Comments

  1. JMJ. In 1925 Homosexuality was a Mental Illness as stated in the DSM II. 1973 the Homosexual activists successfully forced its removal. Huge Victory for them legally. Now they’ve been turned loose on Society. Everything they touch now is caught up in Chaos. The Catholic Church is their biggest threat now.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. SCOTUS kicks the can down the road on parental rights – Via Nova
  2. And Now They Come for Your Children – The American Perennialist

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*