Supreme Court Affirms: Children Belong to Their Parents - Not the State

Supreme Court Affirms: Children Belong to Their Parents — Not the State On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a powerful 6–3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, affirming a truth that should never have been controversial in America: parents, not the government, are primarily responsible for the moral, religious, and educational upbringing of their children. This case arose out of Montgomery County, Maryland, where public school officials introduced LGBTQ-themed storybooks into elementary classrooms. These books were not limited to high school debate, adult literature, or optional instruction. They were brought into classrooms for young children, including elementary students, and used to promote ideas about sexuality, marriage, gender identity, and family structure that directly conflicted with the sincere religious convictions of many parents. At first, the school district allowed parents to receive notice and opt their children out. Then the district changed course. Parents were told they would no longer receive notice, and their children would no longer be allowed to opt out. In plain English, the government's message was this: we will teach your children what we want, when we want, without telling you, and you have no right to remove them even when it violates your faith. The Supreme Court said no. This ruling is a major victory for religious liberty, parental rights, and constitutional government. It is also a warning to every school board, every education bureaucracy, and every elected official in America: public schools do not own our children. The Constitutional Issue The Constitution does not contain one single sentence that says, "parents have the final say over every decision involving their children." But for more than a century, the Supreme Court has recognized that the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. In Meyer v. Nebraska, the Court recognized that parents have a right and duty to control the education of their children. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Court rejected the idea that the state could force every child into government schools, declaring that "the child is not the mere creature of the State." In Troxel v. Granville, the Court reaffirmed that fit parents are presumed to act in the best interest of their children. When religious conviction is involved, the First Amendment adds another layer of protection. The Free Exercise Clause protects the right of parents to raise their children according to their faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court made clear that the government may not simply steamroll religious parents because the state believes it knows better. That is the heart of Mahmoud v. Taylor. The parents in this case did not ask the Court to ban books. They did not ask the Court to erase people from society. They did not ask the Court to control every classroom decision. They asked for something very simple and very reasonable: tell us when this instruction is being given, and allow us to remove our young children from instruction that violates our religious convictions. That is not extremism. That is constitutional liberty. The Supreme Court's Ruling The Supreme Court ruled that the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction. That means the Court ordered protection for the parents while the case continued. The Court held that the school board's policy — introducing the LGBTQ storybooks while refusing notice and opt-outs — likely violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The majority recognized that the books were not merely neutral exposure to the existence of different people or families. The Court understood that the materials communicated a moral and ideological message about marriage, sexuality, and gender. The school board wanted children to receive that message, but it denied parents the ability to remove their children when that message contradicted their faith. That matters. There is a difference between teaching children to be kind to all people and requiring children to affirm a moral ideology that violates the religious beliefs of their parents. Christians can and must teach our children to treat every person with dignity because every person is made in the image of God. But that does not mean the government has authority to redefine marriage, sexuality, gender, family, and morality in the hearts and minds of our children. The state may educate. It may not indoctrinate. The state may teach reading. It may not replace the parent. The state may run schools. It may not claim ownership over the conscience of a child. This Is Not a Small Issue This case is about far more than one Maryland school district. This case reveals a growing and dangerous attitude in modern public education: that parents are obstacles, religious convictions are problems, and children belong first to the system. That is the very thinking our Constitution was designed to restrain. The First Amendment does not exist to protect popular opinions. It exists to protect convictions that government officials may dislike. The Free Exercise Clause does not disappear because a school board calls its agenda "inclusive." The Fourteenth Amendment does not become irrelevant because education officials claim administrative inconvenience. The question is not whether schools can teach controversial subjects. The question is whether the government can force young children into instruction that undermines the religious formation their parents are responsible before God to provide. The Supreme Court said the answer is no. And that answer should encourage every parent in Virginia and across America. Justice Sotomayor's Dissent Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Her dissent argued that the majority's ruling risks disrupting public education and may lead to broader opt-out demands from parents who disagree with school curriculum. But Sotomayor's dissent misses the central constitutional issue. This case was not merely about discomfort. It was not simply about parents disliking a book. It was not about trying to erase people from society. It was about whether the government may compel young children to participate in instruction that conflicts with their parents' sincere religious beliefs while denying those parents notice and opt-out rights. Justice Sotomayor framed the issue largely through the lens of political ideology and the modern progressive commitment to state-driven "inclusion." But constitutional rights are not supposed to rise or fall based on the preferred ideology of government officials. The Constitution does not say that religious liberty applies only when the dissenting belief is fashionable. It does not say parental rights exist only when the state agrees with the parent. It does not say the First Amendment must bow before the political priorities of the education bureaucracy. Her dissent treats the school's ideological goals as though they should outweigh the religious liberty of parents. That is precisely backward. The Supreme Court has already recognized, again and again, that parents have a fundamental role in the upbringing of their children. The Court has already said that children are not mere creatures of the state. The Court has already protected religious parents from government mandates that threaten the religious formation of their children. Justice Sotomayor's dissent ignores the clear direction of those constitutional principles and the Supreme Court's own precedent. Her view would leave parents with fewer rights, schools with more power, and children more vulnerable to state-driven ideology. That is not constitutional liberty. That is government overreach. Federal Law Also Recognizes Parental Rights Beyond the Constitution, federal law also recognizes that parents have rights in the education of their children. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as FERPA, gives parents rights concerning their child's education records and privacy. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, known as PPRA, gives parents rights concerning certain surveys, sensitive information, inspection of instructional materials, and some school activities involving personal or family matters. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA, gives parents of children with disabilities strong procedural rights in decisions involving identification, evaluation, placement, and services. The Every Student Succeeds Act includes parent and family engagement provisions, especially in Title I schools. These federal laws do not give parents absolute control over every school decision. But they prove an important point: even federal law recognizes that parents are not bystanders. They are not visitors in the lives of their own children. They are not optional participants in education. Parents are the first authority in the child's life. The Biblical Principle For Christians, this issue is not merely legal. It is spiritual. God did not give children to the state. God gave children to parents. Deuteronomy 6:6–7 says: "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children…" Ephesians 6:4 says: "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." That responsibility was not given to Washington, Richmond, a school board, a superintendent, or a curriculum committee. It was given to parents. Government has a lawful role. Schools have a lawful role. Teachers have an important role. But none of them have the authority to usurp the God-given responsibility of the parent. When the state claims the right to shape the conscience of a child against the will and faith of the parent, the state has crossed a line it has no authority to cross. What This Means for Virginia Virginia parents must pay close attention. The same ideology that drove this Maryland case is already present in school systems across the country. It comes under different names: inclusion, equity, diversity, social-emotional learning, anti-bullying curriculum, family-life instruction, library policy, or classroom representation. But the issue is not the label. The issue is the substance. If a school system uses instructional materials to promote moral claims about sexuality, gender, marriage, and family, parents have a right to know. And when those materials violate the sincere religious beliefs of parents, those parents must have meaningful protection. Virginia parents should demand policies that require: Advance notice when sensitive instruction is given; The right to inspect instructional materials; A clear opt-out process for religious objections; No retaliation against students or parents who exercise those rights; Full transparency from school boards and administrators. A school system that hides curriculum from parents should not be trusted with children. The Warning The progressive left often advances its agenda by assuming parents are too busy, too uninformed, or too afraid to push back. They count on confusion. They count on silence. They count on people not knowing the difference between tolerance and indoctrination. But VAIB exists to make sure you do know the difference. Tolerance says: treat every person with dignity. Indoctrination says: affirm our ideology or be punished. Tolerance says: parents have rights. Indoctrination says: government knows better than parents. Tolerance says: religious liberty matters. Indoctrination says: religious convictions must surrender to the political agenda of the state. The Supreme Court has now reminded America that the Constitution still stands between the family and the power of the state. Conclusion The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a major victory, but the battle is not over. Parents must stay alert. Churches must speak clearly. Pastors must not remain silent. School boards must be held accountable. Legislators must protect parental rights with clear law. And every citizen must understand that when the state seeks to take control of the moral formation of children, religious liberty itself is at stake. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly: parents do not lose their constitutional rights when they send their children to public school. Children are not property of the government. Parents are not obstacles to education. Religious conviction is not a problem to be managed by the state. And the Constitution does not bow to political ideology. VAIB will continue to stand for religious liberty, parental rights, and constitutional truth in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Because when government forgets its limits, free people must remind it. The child is not the creature of the state. The parent is not the servant of the school board. And America is not yet so far gone that the Constitution cannot still restrain the hand of government.