YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → M4L Academy | Parental Rights 101: Landmark SCOTUS Rulings with Kate Anderson, ADF

M4L Academy | Parental Rights 101: Landmark SCOTUS Rulings with Kate Anderson, ADF — Transcript

by Moms for Liberty · 8,981 words · 1,337 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00So, during COVID, we represented a
0:02little girl who in 2020 wore her mask to
0:05school that said Jesus loves me, and she
0:07was told that she had to take it off.
0:09We represented a boy, and his case went
0:11all the way up asking the Supreme Court
0:13to take the case because he wore a there
0:15are only two genders shirt in response
0:18sharing his beliefs about gender when
0:20his school was advocating for radical
0:23gender ideology, and he was punished at
0:25school for wearing that t-shirt. And
0:27then in the time period right after so
0:30recently, Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
0:33We saw students wanting to paint the
0:35rock at school or take other measures to
0:38try to honor his legacy and support free
0:40speech in his honor, and they were being
0:42shut down and punished by schools. In
0:44addition to a growing history of school
0:47clubs that were being shut down because
0:48they were pro-life, religious in nature,
0:51TPUSA clubs, while other clubs were able
0:55to freely operate on campus and share
0:57their viewpoints. So, exactly what was
1:00shared before about this act was
1:01important. We need to make sure that all
1:03students can speak their minds. The
1:04public school should be a place for
1:06public debate, for students to be able
1:09to build their own views about the world
1:11and talk about those with their friends
1:13and be able to get used to talking about
1:17and defending their views
1:19>> [music]
1:24[music]
1:31[music]
1:55>> and preserving liberty with a special
1:56focus on topics that impact kids,
1:58schools, and of course parental rights.
2:01This summer, Moms for Liberty is
2:03officially unofficially declaring June
2:05to be parental rights month. This topic
2:07is close to our hearts, obviously, as
2:09defending parental rights is part of our
2:11mission. Oddly enough, parental rights,
2:13which essentially is just the right to
2:15raise your kid as your kids, has somehow
2:18become a political partisan issue. Seems
2:21like everything today is. Quick, who
2:23makes the best fries? Burger King,
2:24McDonald's, or Wendy's?
2:26None. Obviously, it's Chick-fil-A
2:28because they make God's chicken, so
2:30clearly they have the best fries. But
2:32we're not here to talk about fries.
2:34This summer, we're going back to the
2:35basics, learning just why parental
2:37rights are so important to a free
2:39society and the history of parental
2:41rights in America, at least legally.
2:43Today, we're joined by Kate Anderson
2:44from Alliance Defending Freedom, who's
2:46going to help us unpack some of the
2:47major rulings by the Supreme Court to
2:49uphold and affirm parental rights. All
2:52right, let's get into it. Welcome back
2:54to class.
2:55Okay, so uh blah blah blah blah blah
2:57blah and welcome to the program, Kate.
3:00We are thrilled to have you here.
3:02>> Thank you for having me.
3:04>> Tell us real quick about what you do at
3:05ADF.
3:06>> Yeah, so I am a senior counsel with
3:08Alliance Defending Freedom. Uh I'm an
3:10attorney here and I run our parental
3:12rights team. So, a few years back, we
3:14saw what was going on in the country,
3:15decided we needed a dedicated litigation
3:17group to focus in on this issue to
3:20protect parents' rights and help them,
3:21particularly in the school context. And
3:24so, that's what we've been doing ever
3:25since.
3:26>> I'm so thankful that we have
3:29we have lawyers who are fighting the
3:31good fight for us because it feels like
3:33feels like today everything, all of our
3:35major battles, not all, um clearly not
3:38all, but it feels like so many major
3:39battles are decided in the in the
3:41courtroom. So, let's start with a
3:42baseline. Why don't you tell us uh what
3:45do what do we mean when we talk about
3:47parental rights and why are they so
3:49important to a free society?
3:51>> So, parental rights are important
3:52because kids are important and they're
3:54the recognition that kids are born into
3:56families and that families are the ones,
3:58their parents, are the ones that are the
4:00responsible to raise their kids, to
4:02direct their upbringing and their
4:03education, to help them make decisions
4:05before they're old enough to make those
4:07decisions themselves. And so, parental
4:10rights really key off of the core duty
4:12of parents to be the ones to raise their
4:14kids and walk through difficult life
4:16circumstances with their children as
4:18they're growing up.
4:19>> Yeah, we're the ones doing the hard
4:21We're really doing the hard work. Anyone
4:22who has kids knows that for sure.
4:25>> Oh my gosh.
4:26>> why has We're I think we're very
4:28thankful
4:29I am very thankful in America that
4:31American legal tradition has actually
4:34been very consistent in protecting the
4:36family as an institution, which is
4:37fantastic. So, why is it that schools
4:40and government agencies
4:42well, all throughout our history,
4:44frankly, have often been the flash point
4:47in this conversa- or in this topic in
4:48this debate?
4:49>> I think it's just where you see parental
4:50rights and the government coming
4:52together so clearly. When we're talking
4:53about how you educate kids, especially
4:56in the world of public schools, where
4:58you have parents really partnering with
5:00schools. And when we talk about parental
5:02rights, we talk about the them as being
5:04fundamental and pre-political, which
5:06means that they are rights that are
5:09um just innate to us as human and free
5:12people. They're not rights that are
5:13created by the government or given to us
5:15by the government, but they're rights
5:17that are protected by the government and
5:19the Constitution. And so, that's how all
5:21of the historic cases have talked about
5:23and approached this right. Um but we see
5:25it coming into sort of conflict so often
5:40>> That makes so much sense. I mean, after
5:41all, that's where kids are so often or
5:44for so much of their, well, week, day,
5:47childhood, right? Is in school, so it
5:49does make sense that that would be it.
5:51Do you think that's our society I mean,
5:53I feel like this is a loaded question,
5:54but do you feel like we're shifting from
5:57um a perspective that parents are
6:00understood to be the default
6:02decision-makers and leaning towards
6:05trusting the state that the state knows
6:07best?
6:09>> Yes, but I think we're coming back. And
6:11I think groups groups like Moms for
6:12Liberty are showing that we're coming
6:14back. So, I think there has been such an
6:16understanding at the founding of our
6:17country and for so many years in our
6:19history and tradition, both in law and
6:21in our culture, that parents are the
6:23ones who raise kids. They're in the best
6:25position to know who their kids are, to
6:27know all the circumstances surrounding
6:29their kids. Um and there is this innate
6:31love for your kid that you're going to
6:32try to do what's best for them. And so,
6:34there was a recognition of that. But as
6:36the government became sort of more was
6:40shifted to the government control, and
6:42you see that coming in in public schools
6:44in particular, as well as other areas of
6:46family life, that I think there was more
6:48of a willingness to defer to the
6:50government, um particularly in the
6:52school context, as the experts when it
6:54comes to children. And so, you had that
6:56shifting that I think really changed
6:58with COVID. When parents saw at their
7:00dining room table exactly what the
7:02public schools were telling their kids
7:04and how they were educating their kids,
7:05and they didn't like it, and it didn't
7:07um coincide with their own beliefs and
7:09how they wanted to raise their kids. And
7:11so, I think we kind of are coming from
7:12an era where there was a lot of
7:14deference to the government, um in how
7:16to raise kids and how to educate kids,
7:19um and now we're seeing parents really
7:20stand up and say, "No, they're my kids,
7:23and I'm the one who knows best how to
7:24raise them, and the government shouldn't
7:26be interfering with my right to do
7:28that." Especially in light of recent
7:30stories coming out about schools that
7:32are hiding information from parents and
7:34lying to them about their kids. That's
7:35just sort of put it right on the nose.
7:39>> Yeah, that I agree. I mean, I still find
7:41it absolutely and it just almost
7:44breathtaking when I hear about these
7:45schools that think that it's appropriate
7:47to lie about the child that's going
7:50through such challenging times.
7:52This is not we weren't really planning
7:54this and this is purely anecdotal just
7:56just curious. Why do you think What do
7:59you think led us to that point of being
8:01so willing to trust the government? Cuz
8:04I don't I feel like I felt like that
8:06time period was pretty patriotic. So, we
8:09we loved our country. Like what How did
8:10we get there?
8:12And I'm so glad that we're coming out of
8:13it, by the way.
8:14>> Yes. I mean, there's probably a million
8:16factors that went into this, but I think
8:18we've just seen our government grow in
8:20so many areas of our lives that the
8:22government is providing more and more in
8:24our lives as the country has grown
8:26than was really happening at the
8:28founding and that has been so much in
8:29the context of public schools. And as
8:31you see it become more expensive to
8:33private school kids or
8:36there barriers to being homeschooling
8:37more and more parents were putting their
8:38kids into public schools. And the public
8:41schools historically have been good
8:43providing great education. But there's
8:45been sort of this running to those
8:47public schools, I think, by families and
8:49then just a deterioration in the
8:52education quality in some of the schools
8:54and some of the focus of what those
8:56schools are doing with kids that has
8:58caused this clash to happen.
9:00>> Yeah, it definitely didn't happen
9:01overnight. That's something that I think
9:04What I mean, I joked that it a minute
9:07ago that it feels like it's been a
9:08decade since 2025, but truly I mean, it
9:11it gosh, does 2020 2020 does not feel
9:14like it was just 6 years ago at all. Um
9:17okay, let's shift over and talk about
9:19some of these major cases. That's what
9:20I'm really excited to have you here for
9:22is to unpack some of these real core
9:25decisions that have a rulings from the
9:28Supreme Court that have supported,
9:30affirmed, validated, strengthened,
9:33protected parental rights in America.
9:35So, let's start with Meyer v. Nebraska.
9:38What was the core issue there?
9:40>> That court case arose because there was
9:42a teacher who was teaching German to a
9:4410-year-old, and there was a law in
9:46Nebraska at the time, this was
9:47post-World War II, that said that
9:49students under eighth grade could not
9:51receive education in a foreign language.
9:54And so, that teacher was actually
9:56criminally convicted. It went all the
9:58way up to the US Supreme Court, which
10:00overturned that conviction and said that
10:02that law was unconstitutional. And sort
10:04of or to that decision from the court
10:07was the parental rights element of that,
10:09which is why this is one of the first
10:10cases that we see cited in parental
10:13rights litigation. This was a case that
10:15said this parent had the right to go and
10:17seek this education for their child and
10:20could to hire this teacher to provide
10:22this German foreign language education.
10:25And so, it talked in very broad terms at
10:27that point without a lot of sort of
10:30undergirding of the tests and the
10:32elements and things that we often see in
10:34case law, but just sort of marked out
10:36this principle that parents are the ones
10:37who direct their kids' education and
10:39upbringing, and that includes being able
10:41to choose things like foreign language
10:43education for their young children.
10:45>> Hm. I That seems almost
10:49It almost seems laughable, and I don't
10:52mean it in that way, but it seems so
10:54unusual that there would be a a court
10:57case about learning in German when we
10:59have so many languages nowadays.
11:02Is there
11:03I mean,
11:04can you can you very quickly recap why
11:06it would have been such an issue to have
11:08it be in German versus English?
11:10>> This is following World War II, and
11:12there was or World War I, rather. This
11:14was following World War I. And so, it
11:15was just this desire for patriotism for
11:19us to have a unique or one language
11:22through the entire country. So, they
11:23were really trying to, I guess, in
11:25Nebraska cap down on other languages and
11:28other cultures to bring sort of this
11:29unification. Um, I think that was sort
11:32of the desire behind it. It clearly was
11:34a problem um for many parents including
11:37me.
11:37>> Yeah, I appreciate you putting that
11:38context. It's really, really important.
11:40I know that uh we see that a lot with
11:44oh, civics and and history in general
11:46that we try to we we put our culture or
11:49our values. Uh we see the history
11:52through the the lens of modern-day
11:54values and it just doesn't apply. It
11:57doesn't make sense and it's it's so
11:58important to take into account the the
12:01context of the times.
12:03So, why exactly is this case still
12:06relevant? Why does it matter um
12:10in disputes over curriculum or language
12:12or educational choice because it seems I
12:14mean, obviously we're okay with other
12:16languages. So, why is this one so
12:17valuable?
12:18>> It's because it's the first case that
12:20really set down this idea in Supreme
12:22Court case law that parents are the ones
12:24that direct their kids' education and
12:26upbringing. And it's followed very
12:27quickly by a case called Pierce versus
12:29Society of Sisters, which we'll talk
12:30about I think in a minute. But, um this
12:33was sort of the first landmark case
12:35laying down this principle. And you're
12:36coming in a history and tradition at the
12:38time that I think this was widely
12:39understood by people that parents raise
12:41their kids, not the government. But,
12:43this was a time when the Supreme Court
12:44actually said that. And it's what sort
12:46of kicked off a series of cases that
12:49then have brought us to where we are
12:51today on the parental rights issue when
12:53we're talking about the Supreme Court
12:54jurisprudence.
12:55>> Yeah, that makes sense. So, then I
12:57before we talk about Pierce, I I want to
13:00challenge just a little, not because I
13:02disagree with you, but I'm just curious.
13:04So, I think that you could it could be
13:06argued that there is a certain um
13:09requirement or or legitimate interest we
13:13you might say in the state in our
13:15government a national government trying
13:18to create a common culture, ensure that
13:22we all have a baseline that our children
13:23are educated to have a shared a single
13:26language ideally. Um so,
13:29how do you respond to that?
13:31>> I think that's very much what drove us
13:33to bring about public schools and to
13:35make sure that we're getting a baseline
13:36education for all kids. But, time and
13:39time again, those kinds of arguments are
13:40made in the case law and the court time
13:43and time again says that that interest
13:44can't override the parents' right to
13:47educate their kids. And this idea of the
13:49duty of parents to be the ones to raise
13:53their kids, to educate them, to be
13:55responsible for all of those aspects of
13:57a child's life, and that that's really a
13:59decision about who carries the primary
14:01responsibility. And therefore, needs the
14:03right to be able to live up to that
14:05responsibility. And so, it's balancing a
14:07little bit of the interest, but saying
14:09that when you're you're finding a clash
14:11between parents' rights to educate their
14:13kids and the government interest, that
14:15in most circumstances, the parents'
14:16right is going to prevail.
14:19As I think that it generally should. So,
14:22all right, that was that was really
14:23good. Let's move over to Pierce v.
14:24Society of Sisters. And this, I know, is
14:28really considered one of the most
14:30important parental rights cases. So, can
14:31you talk about why that is?
14:33>> Yeah, this one came about 2 years after
14:35Meyer v. Nebraska. So, they're kind of
14:37companion cases for each other. But,
14:39this came up I believe it was Oregon,
14:42said that they were going to require
14:44every student to go to public school and
14:46you could not choose a religious
14:48parochial school or other private
14:50schools. And so, you have two
14:53plaintiffs in that case, a parochial
14:55Catholic school as well as a military
14:57school that challenged that law and said
14:59parents should have the right to send
15:01their kids to our schools. We should be
15:02able to educate kids as well when
15:04parents choose this type of education.
15:06And it's become such a landmark case
15:08because it has beautiful language about
15:10parental rights and about the nature of
15:13the relationship with children that we
15:15still quote today. It says that children
15:17are not the mere creature of the state
15:18and goes on to talk about what that
15:20means, that they're not the mere
15:22creature of the state. They belong in
15:24families. They're born to families and
15:25families are the ones with the duty to
15:27raise them and therefore because they're
15:29responsible for these things need to be
15:31able to make the best choices for their
15:33children and that includes access to
15:35private school and other options. So
15:37this the case that it's a hundred years
15:39old and it really is the landmark case
15:42that we keep seeing quoted and quoted
15:43again in all parental rights cases going
15:46forward because it laid out those broad
15:48and fundamental principles. And it set
15:51forth in education the idea that parents
15:53get to choose between public and private
15:55education which they still do today.
15:58>> Honestly, it's almost
16:00um
16:01it is almost hard for me to wrap my head
16:03around a time that there wasn't the
16:05ability to do that. Uh and to think that
16:08this ever would have been challenged is
16:10it it makes me realize how much we take
16:13for granted so many freedoms that have
16:16been won on the battlefield and in the
16:19courtroom um over the past 250 years. So
16:23I think this is interesting though
16:25because it does touch on and or dance
16:28around what I think is a a very valid
16:31concern that people might have that I
16:34could hear as an argument in response is
16:35the concept of educational quality
16:37because I think that was for a long time
16:40the issue with home school is this idea
16:42that they you know weren't socialized
16:45children and didn't have good quality
16:47and you're
16:48just never who never know like what
16:50they're actually learning. Obviously
16:52that's not the case. Things are clearly
16:54a lot different now but overall comes
16:55back to the concept of educational
16:57quality. So what is the difference
17:00between regulating educational quality
17:03and trying to control the educational
17:05institution that families must use?
17:07>> Well in homeschooling as you mentioned
17:08there was a time when homeschooling was
17:10entirely banned and we had to fight
17:11through the courts to enable parents the
17:13ability to school their parents at home
17:15and I or school their children at home.
17:18And I think that those choices are so
17:20important because every kid is so unique
17:22and there's going to be different things
17:24for different kids that are going to be
17:25the right fit. But as to educational
17:27quality, we see that all the time in the
17:29states marking out what subjects kids
17:32should learn. Um there's baseline
17:34testing uh that goes on and
17:36accreditation with private schools. So
17:38there's a way to balance ensuring
17:41quality of education while still
17:42ensuring parental rights. And at the end
17:45of the day, there's a bit of a policy
17:46choice being made about whether you
17:48trust parents to educate their kids. And
17:50the court cases have historically said
17:53we have to. We We as a free society
17:55trust that parents are going to educate
17:57their kids and they're going to fulfill
17:58that duty. And absent evidence of that
18:01not happening in some significant
18:04capacity the way that we deal with abuse
18:05cases, parents are the ones that need to
18:07be controlling the this piece of child a
18:11child's life and being able to protect
18:13them.
18:14>> So that makes me think of and I'm not an
18:16expert on the Amish culture in any way,
18:19but it makes me think of the very
18:20extreme differences cuz I think the next
18:22case we're going to talk about in
18:24Wisconsin v. Yoder, that was Amish. Um
18:26and
18:28I could see that the educational quality
18:30being a concern because I think that
18:33it's it's stopped like general education
18:35stops at a certain point sooner than um
18:39the rest of society essentially or our
18:41standards in society. Um
18:45that I could really see being a concern.
18:48So let's switch over to
18:50cuz I ultimately you want to give
18:51parents the the choice that they have
18:53the right to raise their child as their
18:56child. And I can see the real issue with
18:59wanting, you know, people thinking
19:00they're protecting or helping these kids
19:02cuz they want to make sure that those
19:03kids have the same opportunities as
19:04everyone else, but then you're telling
19:06someone else how to raise their kids. So
19:07sorry, I digress. Let's talk about
19:09Wisconsin v. Yoder now. Why did the
19:11court side with the Amish parents in
19:13this case?
19:14>> This was a case about Amish parents who
19:17in their society, they wanted their kids
19:19to do formal education through I believe
19:21it was eighth grade. It was sometime in
19:22middle school. And then to be taught at
19:24home the things that they would need to
19:26be part of the Amish society. And so
19:28they wanted to pull their kids out and
19:30the education system at the time said
19:32they couldn't do that. That there was
19:34mandatory education laws requiring them
19:35to keep their kids in longer. And so
19:37there was a case about that um that went
19:39all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
19:41And there I think you do see the court
19:42really balancing some of the things
19:44we've been talking about. That there is
19:46an interest in having this education be
19:49more baseline for everybody, for the
19:51government to be able to provide a
19:52baseline of education, while still
19:54respecting parents rights to make their
19:57decisions about their kids in the
19:58context in which they live, recognizing
20:00that we're a pluralistic society. And
20:03there are families and cultures within
20:04our society that are different from each
20:06other. And that we want to support that
20:08kind of difference and to respect those
20:10families rights. Um the interesting
20:13thing at play in Yoder was that up until
20:15now the court always talked about
20:17parental rights or historically talked
20:19about it parental rights as being a
20:21fundamental right, which is what we
20:22talked about at the beginning. And that
20:24it sounded in the 14th Amendment of the
20:26Constitution. So that meant the
20:28Constitution protects it not because
20:29it's written out in the Constitution
20:31like free speech or religious freedom,
20:33but because it's sort of recognized as
20:35innate to life and liberty and freedom
20:37in this country. Um but what Yoder did
20:40was add in the free exercise element and
20:42say that this is also this is also an
20:45issue of the freedom of religion of
20:47these parents and their ability to
20:49exercise their faith in how they raise
20:51their children and then how they're
20:53building their society. And so I think
20:56that that's part of what sort of turned
20:58that decision was the idea that this was
21:01a parent's choice, but also tied very
21:03directly to their religious upbringing
21:05for their children and what they desired
21:07for that child um and how they were
21:09going to educate them partially through
21:10the public schools, but then partially
21:12through at home at some point in their
21:14development.
21:16>> I I don't think it's this case. I think
21:17it was a different one that I was
21:18reading about that talks about the
21:20importance of um
21:22the courts recognizing the parental
21:24authority and and deferring to that even
21:27and not being careful to protect it even
21:30if the court may think that there could
21:32be a slightly better position. And when
21:34I hear that and the way you explained it
21:36just there really makes me think of
21:38even like a rural versus an urban life.
21:42Someone who lives in urban life, for
21:44example, and ha- doesn't have to drive
21:46because they're wa- they walk
21:47everywhere, but it's loud in the
21:49neighborhood and they don't have wide
21:51open spaces and they have to walk to get
21:53to the park instead of going in their
21:55backyard kind of thing. Um it that to
21:57them that may be an amazing life that
22:00they would
22:02say why wouldn't you rural people want
22:04this? But the someone who lives in a
22:06rural community may not want anything to
22:09do with that very urban life. And it's
22:11it's really a good reminder of just
22:14because we think something is
22:16we personally and so I'm saying me,
22:19really, not you. Um but like it that
22:22that there's so many other perspectives
22:24in it and this is it really is very
22:26nuanced. There's a lot of thought to
22:28this.
22:29>> Yeah, I think it also illustrates why
22:31parental rights and these issues should
22:33be bipartisan because these are rights
22:35that are important for everybody no
22:37matter how they want to raise their kids
22:39and no matter where they live or what
22:40their culture and religion is. Uh this
22:43is about parents being able to make the
22:44best decision for their family and their
22:46kids. It's not about a judgment on what
22:48that decision should be um with limited
22:50exceptions, of course, but for the vast
22:53majority of parents this is about
22:54letting them raise their family the way
22:56that they think is best for their kids.
22:59>> And I think that's so important. And you
23:00said it before, but truly we are not in
23:02any way saying that there aren't
23:04genuinely not good situations that
23:08children need to be protected from. But
23:10in the vast majority of time, it's
23:11that's not going to be the case. So,
23:12that that is really that's very
23:14important. So, Yoder, I've heard
23:17can sometimes be difficult to for modern
23:19courts to apply. Why would that be?
23:22>> I think it was for so many years just
23:23considered something that was unique to
23:25this particular situation. It involved
23:27the Amish culture. It was sort of this
23:29unique issue revolving around this one
23:32particular religious and cultural group.
23:35So, I think that many people thought
23:36Yoder was a little bit of a one-off.
23:38It's been sort of revitalized in some
23:40recent case law from the US Supreme
23:41Court that we'll talk about, um, but for
23:45many years, Yoder was sort of considered
23:47this one-off because it looked to the
23:48free exercise and it dealt with the
23:50Amish and it People didn't think that it
23:51had much application to other parental
23:54rights arguments.
23:55>> I could see that, especially cuz I'm I'm
23:58not at all implying that the Amish is a
24:00cult, but I can see that some people
24:02would see those very strict beliefs and
24:05very strict, uh, values as, uh,
24:09far to the extreme. And so, I could see
24:11why someone might, um, see it as more of
24:14an outlier as opposed to something that
24:16really fits in the mainstream.
24:18>> The situation that's not going to repeat
24:19itself over and over in other
24:20circumstances the court's looking at.
24:22>> Yeah. Yeah, I agree I would imagine
24:24you're not going to see that too much.
24:26Actually, have we? Did Have there been a
24:27bunch of cases since that have like
24:30addressed Amish religion?
24:31>> No.
24:32>> Not at that level. Not going all the way
24:34up to the Supreme Court and making this
24:35kind of statement that could be
24:37precedential like this.
24:38>> That's interesting. I'm As far as I
24:40know, this was the only one, but I do
24:41not keep track of Supreme Court cases.
24:43I'm not going to lie. So, I trust you to
24:45do that. No, I'm kidding.
24:47Um,
24:47All right. So, why Let's talk about
24:49Troxel v. Granville now. Why was this
24:51one so significant?
24:53>> Until very, very recently, it was sort
24:55of the last Supreme Court case that
24:57talked about parental rights and made
24:59these sort of broad statements about
25:01parental rights being fundamental, uh
25:03that parents have the right to direct
25:04the upbringing and education of their
25:06kids. And I keep saying that phrase over
25:07and over again, but that's the one
25:08that's in the case law over and over and
25:10over again from the US Supreme Court.
25:12And so, Troxel was decided in 2000. So,
25:15we've been talking about how 2020 is a
25:17long time ago. Troxel was 2000. And so,
25:20there was a long space where the court
25:22the high court did not take any parental
25:25rights cases. Um and Troxel was kind of
25:27a unique one because it was about a
25:30grandparent visitation statute out of
25:33Washington state. The core debate was in
25:36a divorce situation, I think the father
25:38had passed away, but the father's
25:40parents wanted visitation time, wanted
25:42more visitation time than they were
25:44being allotted by the biological mother.
25:46And so, the court was dealing with,
25:48well, what how do we interpret the
25:50statute? Does the mom get to decide who
25:52visits and spend time with her kid? How
25:55does this all work? And ultimately, the
25:57court came to what I think is the right
25:58decision, that the mom gets to make the
26:00decisions about the custodial time of
26:02her child. And she was giving visitation
26:05time to the grandparents, just not as
26:06much as they wanted. Um but, it didn't
26:09really deal with the core constitutional
26:12claim. The court made that decision in a
26:15very fractured opinion where I think you
26:17had six opinions from different judges,
26:20uh justices on the court. And none of
26:22them quite agreed about how to get
26:24there. Um they didn't talk in great
26:26detail about how to apply the
26:28constitutional principles. They decided
26:30on some other more statutory grounds.
26:33And so, what happened was you had this
26:35sort of landmark case on parental
26:36rights, the one that was standing out
26:38there from the US Supreme Court that
26:40said parental rights are fundamental,
26:42that it's parents that have the right
26:44and responsibility to to direct their
26:46kids' education and upbringing, but then
26:48it didn't explain what that meant, um
26:51what kind of test to put to that? How to
26:53deal with that when other issues come
26:55up? And so that was all left to the
26:56lower courts, and it created really two
26:59plus decades of case law in the courts
27:03of appeals and the district courts where
27:05courts were all over the map on how they
27:07protected or didn't protect parental
27:09rights. And you had a lot of bad cases
27:11coming up from the public schools where
27:14it created this precedent that schools
27:17had wide authority if it was curriculum.
27:19Everything became curriculum to the
27:21courts. And so parents began really
27:23losing their rights at the schoolhouse
27:25gate whenever they chose to send their
27:26kids to public schools. And while Troxel
27:29wasn't directly related to public
27:30schools, I think it sort of kicked off
27:32what happened there because it failed to
27:34give a clear test to the lower courts on
27:37how to handle parental rights cases.
27:41>> Huh. That's a really fascinating point
27:43about this. I would not have realized
27:45that. I I was
27:47I got to be honest, I was just kind of
27:49amazed thinking about
27:51grandparent maybe there's a reason why
27:53mom kept the kid away from the
27:54grandparents if they actually took her
27:55to court because Now, I don't know
27:57anything about the family at all, but it
27:59feels like that's a little bit of an
28:00overreach. That said, I agree with you
28:03that I I think that the courts made the
28:05right decision there with my limited
28:07knowledge of it. But that is
28:09What Why is it so important to at What
28:12did you call it? The to define the test?
28:15Yeah. Or Why is that so important? It's
28:18so important because it tells the lower
28:20courts. So we have the US Supreme Court,
28:22and then we have courts of appeals below
28:23it, and we have the district courts in
28:25the federal court system that really are
28:27the ones that you usually hear about
28:28that have trials, that deal with issues
28:30at the sort of normal level where most
28:33people are just in those trial courts.
28:34And what happens is the US Supreme Court
28:36sets up principles to interpret the
28:38Constitution, and then typically they
28:40provide tests. So they explain to the
28:43lower courts, this is how you should
28:44look at a free speech case or a free
28:47exercise case. This is the factors
28:50you're going to look at to determine
28:51which way to decide. So, when you get
28:53new facts, new cases that come to you
28:56that are different than the one that's
28:57in front of us, you'll know what to do
28:59with that and sort of what rubric to
29:01judge that case through. And so, those
29:03tests are incredibly important, and
29:05that's been the big hole in parental
29:07rights litigation is that there has been
29:10this history long history of broad
29:12principles that parents are the ones
29:14that make these decisions, but no clear
29:16test from the highest court in our
29:18country to explain how to deal with
29:21those rights and how to apply those
29:23rights to public school, to health care,
29:25to custody, to other issues that parents
29:27face. And so, from 2000s even into the
29:31'90s before that, all the way through
29:33until the last 2 years really, there has
29:36just been this confusion in the lower
29:39courts where you have some courts
29:41protecting parental rights and some
29:42courts not protecting parental rights.
29:45And this has particularly come to a head
29:46in the public schools because so many of
29:48the cases have come up in that context.
29:50So, there was a whole series of cases
29:52where parents challenged sex ed
29:53curriculum and other things like that
29:55that violated their faith, and the
29:57courts habitually deferred to the
30:00schools and said they could require kids
30:02to go through these things. That's led
30:03to and often they do fix this through
30:05legislation, but that led to a lot of
30:07legislation in the states to give
30:09parents opt out to sex ed curriculum.
30:11But, you just had this sort of patchwork
30:13of protections that was happening across
30:15the country when it came to parental
30:17rights.
30:18>> Huh, that's really interesting. I and
30:20also makes a lot more sense. It explains
30:23why we
30:25see different things. And is it fair to
30:26say, just as a quick summary, is it fair
30:28to say that the goal is
30:30is there more of a tendency or desire to
30:33try not to be too prescriptive in order
30:36to allow more freedom in America? Is
30:39that Could that be like a super layman's
30:41version of why they wouldn't necessarily
30:44put such a strict rubric in place?
30:46>> My guess is they couldn't decide on the
30:48rubric, but
30:50>> Or the bottom line is
30:51>> Yeah.
30:52That's a much better view of and often
30:54that is with the court. They're a little
30:56bit hands-off in allowing more freedom
30:58to decide in new situations and
31:00providing more guidance when they think
31:02the court's really needed. And so when
31:05you see in other areas of case law,
31:08the sort of patchwork coming together
31:10and protections not being the same state
31:12to state or court to court, that's when
31:15you start to see the court step in and
31:17take more action, which is what we've
31:18seen in the last 2 years.
31:19>> Yeah, and boy we have seen some
31:21interesting ones. Which one of our next
31:24case is just very recently and it's
31:26Mahmoud v. Taylor, which Moms for
31:28Liberty's own people were involved in.
31:30So can you talk explain to our viewers
31:33what the core constitutional principle
31:35was being debated and what was affirmed
31:37in Mahmoud?
31:38>> This has been the most exciting case of
31:40my life, I think, over the whole time
31:42I've been working on parental rights.
31:45But this is a case where exactly what we
31:47were talking about, the courts decided
31:48to step in and give more guidance on
31:51what's going on in the public schools.
31:53The case developed in out of Montgomery
31:55County, Maryland over curriculum in the
31:58school, curriculum that was focused on
32:00LGBT issues all the way down to the
32:02kindergarten. So there were particular
32:04books that were being read that promoted
32:07same-sex marriage, um
32:09different gender ideologies,
32:11the idea that you could be born in the
32:13wrong body and everything sort of
32:15associated with that. And it was being
32:17These books were being read all the way
32:18down to kindergarten. So a group of
32:20parents from many different faith
32:22backgrounds came together and first they
32:25tried to opt out of these books and were
32:27told they could and then they couldn't.
32:29And they did not want their kids to go
32:31through these particular storybooks and
32:33the lessons associated with them because
32:35those very lessons talked about the
32:37purpose of these books was to teach
32:39these kids to internalize these ideas
32:42about marriage and about gender and
32:45about the world. And they were directly
32:47opposed to the religious beliefs of all
32:49of these parents, even though they came
32:51from many different faith backgrounds.
32:53Uh and so they filed a case. It went all
32:55the way up to the US Supreme Court,
32:56which means they lost at the two levels
32:58below.
32:59Um where those two levels sided with the
33:01district that this was curriculum, the
33:03district could do this. The US Supreme
33:05Court took the case and landmark
33:07decision in this case saying that it's
33:10the parents' right to get notice of this
33:12kind of curriculum and to be able to
33:14pull their child from that curriculum
33:17and that the school needs to respect the
33:19parents' rights to opt their children
33:21out of things that violate their
33:23religious convictions and particularly
33:25the way they want to raise their
33:26children.
33:27>> Was Did Yoder come up in this one?
33:30>> It did It did a little, yeah. Um it
33:33really It resurrected Yoder and really
33:36talked about how that idea that bringing
33:38because it was also a case very much
33:40about the religion of these parents um
33:42more than it was truly a parental rights
33:45discussion in the case. But like Yoder,
33:48it was talking about how as part of the
33:50exercise of these parents' faith, they
33:53need to be able to raise their kids
33:54according to their religious beliefs and
33:56that they have rights over the religious
33:58upbringing of their kids that include
34:00having notice of direction from the
34:02school that's going to violate those
34:04core convictions and the way they want
34:05to raise and the ability to opt their
34:08child out of it. So those kids are not
34:10being told to internalize and believe
34:12things at school that violate their
34:14parents' religious upbringing of their
34:16kids.
34:17>> This I remember when this was decided
34:19and it was absolutely incredible. Um it
34:22also felt like such a
34:24after after It felt like getting a drink
34:26of water after walking through the
34:28desert for 4 years. It's really truly
34:30what
34:31maybe the best way I can describe it.
34:33So, however, I did see a lot of pushback
34:36online um unsurprisingly in the
34:39Twitterverse and one of the big
34:41arguments that love to keyboard warriors
34:43love to throw out was this idea that oh
34:45well, they didn't they objected to
34:49gosh, all sorts of things. They objected
34:50to Trump being the president, so they
34:52were going to opt their children out of
34:53history classes that taught Trump as a
34:55president. I mean, just ridiculous
34:57things which
34:59sound facetiously unbelievable. However,
35:02I could unfortunately today I could
35:03actually see someone try to do that.
35:05Nevertheless, it's very clear that what
35:07that issue comes down or the issue that
35:08will be um
35:10at the core of that argument is that I'm
35:12just going to opt out, you know,
35:14whatever I disagree with. So, someone
35:16could argue that that's not really going
35:18to be um manageable for a school if all
35:21of a sudden every topic is potentially
35:24disputed topic is now optional. So, how
35:27can how is that going to be managed? How
35:30do we is is it is it true? Could kids
35:33just be opted out of basically anything
35:35or is there more
35:38um of a test put to it? Is there more
35:39structure put around it?
35:41>> The structure put around it in the case
35:43sounded in the idea of freedom of
35:45religion. So, it was really centered on
35:47the parents being able to articulate
35:49that the particular curriculum that was
35:51being taught violated their beliefs and
35:54the way they wanted to raise their kid
35:56in their faith. Um so, it was very tied
35:58in directly to that particular issue.
36:01Um and so, that's what moves forward
36:03from that case is the idea that um at
36:06least for parents um that have religious
36:09objections to what's going on in school
36:11that those objections can be heard and
36:13that the school needs to work with that
36:14parent to try to alleviate the burden on
36:18their religious exercise in what's being
36:20taught at school. Um but there's still
36:22an understanding that schools by and
36:24large set curriculum and that students
36:26are expected to go through it. Um and I
36:29do think that all of these cases leave
36:31questions unanswered. So, some of the
36:33litigation we're seeing come out of uh
36:35the Mahmod case centers on how do you
36:38balance those rights? Um how many
36:40opt-outs are too many opt-outs? Um and
36:43how does the notice get sufficient and
36:45what do you do with other policies that
36:47aren't curriculum? And so, all of that
36:49kind of work is being discussed, I
36:51think, in the cases that are coming up
36:53through the courts. And I suspect that
36:55the Supreme Court is going to have to
36:56rule again on some of these issues to
36:58bring even more clarity. But, it did
37:00bring clarity that uh it really broke
37:02open the doors to the schoolhouse gate.
37:05And there had been cases before that
37:06said exactly that. Parents get to choose
37:08public school, private school, or
37:09homeschooling. And when they choose
37:11public school, they lose their rights at
37:13the schoolhouse gate. Mahmod really
37:15opened those gates and said that parents
37:16still are the ones who control their
37:18kids' education through their free
37:20exercise rights within the public
37:22schools.
37:24>> Do you have time to cover one more case
37:26real quick?
37:27>> Absolutely.
37:28>> Okay. So, this one I think is so
37:30connected to Mahmod. It really feels
37:33like it and that's moving into what was
37:35just earlier this year in Mirabelli v.
37:37Vanta.
37:38And
37:40brought to a head all of the gender
37:42ideology and tran- hidden transition,
37:44the secrecy policies that we really have
37:48seen nationwide that I still
37:51I firmly believe that most parents and
37:54most people in the country do not
37:57realize that schools, many, many school
37:59districts in the nation have actually
38:02explicit policies to hide a gender
38:05transition of a child from the parents.
38:08I I in my heart of hearts, I believe
38:10that cuz I just don't think there's
38:11enough really truly evil people in the
38:13world. But, that is neither here nor
38:15there. The point being, so Mirabelli was
38:18incredible. Um and it and it was
38:20incredible for a number of reasons. So,
38:21real quick, do a quick recap of what it
38:23is, what was decided, but then also
38:26it wasn't Was it an emergency ruling? Is
38:28that what it was called?
38:30>> Yes, so it came up on an emergency
38:32docket. Yeah, so it came up on an
38:33emergency docket, which means the
38:35Supreme Court decided to take it um on
38:37sort of this emergency basis without a
38:40full court case with full briefing at
38:43the US Supreme Court and oral argument
38:45at the Supreme Court. It sort of took it
38:47up on this sort of side procedure that
38:48it had. And I think the court did that
38:50because it was such a critical issue. It
38:52had in front of it over and over
38:54received petitions to hear cases on this
38:56topic. Because you're right, there are
38:58so many school districts across the
38:59country that have policies that if a
39:01student asks to go by a preferred name
39:03or pronoun, they will transition that
39:06kid at school without telling their
39:07parents. They won't get parent
39:09permission, they won't tell them after
39:10they've changed the names and pronouns,
39:12and they will even hide it. We have two
39:13cases still pending, and we've had more
39:15before it, where the school hid the
39:18information from parents actively by
39:20lying to the parents' faces, to um
39:22changing school records to make sure
39:24that everything that went home had the
39:26legal name and female pronouns while
39:28they were using male name and male
39:30pronouns at school. And these are kids
39:32One of our kids was going through an IEP
39:34process. So, the school was in
39:37constant communication with the parents
39:39about the academic and other mental
39:41health concerns they were seeing with
39:42the kid and hiding this information. So,
39:44these are very dangerous policies that
39:47violate parental rights and really hurt
39:48kids. And one of those policies was
39:50challenged in California in the
39:51Mirabelli case um and went all the way
39:54up to the US Supreme Court on this
39:55emergency basis. And the Supreme Court
39:57picked up what it had said in the mood
39:59and applied it to this context, making
40:01very clear that Mahmoud applies beyond
40:04curriculum. It applies to other policies
40:06that the school engages in that violate
40:08parents' core
40:09parents.
40:12It's sort of a one to two lines in the
40:15decision. It talked about how
40:17doing what the school was doing violated
40:20the parents' religious beliefs, but then
40:22added on that it also violated the
40:24rights of non-religious parents. And so,
40:26it also sounds in this fundamental
40:28rights
40:2914th Amendment part of the Constitution,
40:31which is important because parents
40:33shouldn't just have rights be if they're
40:34religious. All parents should have
40:36rights to make sure that the school is
40:38not lying to them and not um undermining
40:41the way that they want to raise their
40:42kids. Um and so, that really signals
40:45that the court's ready to go there in
40:46extending those principles to parents
40:49religious and non-religious um because
40:51it's so important.
40:53>> That's so interesting that uh I had
40:55missed that of the non-religious
40:56parents. I remember I I like deep dove
40:58into this case uh to do just a little
41:01bit of a a coverage thing for Moms for
41:02Liberty, and it it was it was
41:04fascinating to me to read the opinions
41:06and and the uh all of the the documents
41:09that went into the court and the
41:10background and history. Just what It was
41:12amazing.
41:13But, I did somehow manage to miss the
41:15non-religious parents part, which I
41:16think is interesting.
41:17>> short.
41:18>> Oh, okay, good. Then then there was a
41:20lot of reading, so that makes sense. Um
41:22that I think that's really interesting
41:23because then
41:25it sounds like
41:27we're removing the concept of allowing
41:30or or affirming sex-rejecting, which is
41:34a term I've heard that I think is a lot
41:36more realistic, um
41:38uh mentalities
41:40it as something that's not just
41:42religious, that there is more to it,
41:44which I think is really encouraging.
41:47>> Yes. Yes, and I think we'll see the
41:49court need to address this issue in a
41:51future case. Really making sure that
41:53these are rights that parents direct
41:54their kids' education and upbringing,
41:56that this applies in this circumstance
41:58both to religious and non-religious
42:00parents.
42:01>> Well, this I so appreciate you talking
42:03about these cuz sometimes I feel like
42:05people it's amazing how much, again,
42:09like I said earlier, has been protected
42:11and decided in these battles won and we
42:14just don't even realize that there was a
42:16battle sometimes. I think because
42:17nowadays it just feels like well of
42:18course it's common sense. Of course
42:19today we're living in the age without
42:21common sense is how it feels.
42:23Um do you have a minute if you want to
42:25as we close out just highlight some of
42:27the cases that you're currently dealing
42:29with cuz there's a number of cases that
42:31are being reviewed by the Supreme Court
42:34now, right? In this session?
42:36>> Yeah, and we had one that the court
42:38didn't take on this issue that we were
42:39just talking about. Would have been the
42:41case um following Meriwether. The court
42:44in dissent actually talked about our
42:45case, the foot case um that we did with
42:48some allied attorneys, um another group
42:50that we were with. Um
42:52but this issue of secret social
42:54transition is significant and we still
42:56have several cases working their way up
42:58through the courts. One that was just
43:00heard at the second circuit court of
43:01appeals on this issue. We've got to stop
43:04schools from trying to socially
43:06transition kids and lying to parents
43:08about it. Um we need to
43:10extend Mahmoud to these kinds of other
43:12policies. We also have a case uh in
43:15Colorado where it dealt with overnight
43:18policies and how a school had roomed a
43:21fifth grade girl in the same bed as a
43:23fifth grade boy on an overnight trip uh
43:25to DC and did the same to a sixth grade
43:28boy in a cabin on a school sponsored
43:31outdoor lab trip and maintains that
43:32they'll continue to do this to kids
43:35after years of litigation. Um that was
43:37just heard at the 10th Circuit Court of
43:39Appeals and is an opportunity for these
43:42courts of appeals to apply Mahmoud and
43:44Meriwether in the context of other
43:46school policies where parents object to
43:48what's going on with their kids and the
43:50school has an easy way to fix this
43:52issue. Involve the parents. Room
43:54students with students of the same sex
43:55when you know that that's a concern to
43:57them. Um this can be good for all
44:00students to have this information. Um
44:02but we need the courts to weigh in on
44:05this issue and ensure protection. We've
44:07also been doing a wave of education um
44:09along with Moms for Liberty to try to
44:11help parents understand their rights
44:13following Mahmoud and Mirabelli. So, I
44:15know Moms for Liberty has opt-out
44:17resources, we do as well, and I know
44:19there's a lot of other organizations
44:21that have great resources, but we really
44:22are trying to help parents understand
44:25how to ask for information and an
44:28opt-out and how to to make sure they do
44:31it because it's just so important. And
44:33we'll be doing more work in the
44:34curriculum space moving forward, I
44:36think, and trying to expand educational
44:38freedom both within the public schools
44:41and outside of them as we see parents
44:43just really take the reins again in
44:45directing their kids' education and
44:47upbringing.
44:48>> Well, that I find incredibly
44:49encouraging. So, on that on that note of
44:52hope, why don't you tell everyone where
44:54they can find if they have a concern,
44:56what is a way that they could contact
44:59your organization?
45:00>> Um, we have a website adflegal.org
45:03and that is the best place to find out
45:05information about our pending cases,
45:07things that we're looking to work on,
45:09resources that we have available through
45:11our parental rights tab on that website.
45:14And then we also have a legal intake tab
45:16where people can either call ADF or
45:19contact us through our website if they
45:21have any kind of question or need. And I
45:24would encourage anyone listening to this
45:26that if you're running into issues in
45:27your public schools, please feel free to
45:29contact us. We would love to help
45:31provide you with information, help you
45:33however you need. This is an important
45:35issue and it's taking all of us working
45:36together to make a difference for the
45:38good of kids.
45:39>> That's it right there. It takes all of
45:41us working together cuz then it makes
45:42this battle so much more manageable for
45:45sure. Well, thank you so much for
45:46joining us today. This I really
45:48appreciate your insights and your
45:50expertise. And good luck in the as the
45:53fight continues.
45:54>> Thank you very much.
45:56>> We said it today and it really is true
45:58that in the modern world, it's just so
46:01easy to take for granted the rights and
46:04liberties we have now because of the
46:06fight that our fathers and forefathers
46:08were willing to take on, whether the in
46:10the battlefield or in the courtroom.
46:12These are just a few of the cases in
46:13American legal history that support and
46:15protect parental rights.
46:17Boy, am I thankful for them, all of
46:19them. Because of these cases and and
46:22others, I can raise my kids as my kids,
46:24and you can raise your kids as yours.
46:27And what a blessing that is. If you
46:29enjoyed this episode, please hit like
46:31and subscribe, and then share it with
46:32another mom or dad who needs to know the
46:35wonderful rights
46:37and responsibilities that we have as
46:39parents. Because as James Madison said,
46:43"The advancement and diffusion of
46:44knowledge is the only true guardian of
46:46liberty." And that's the mission of M4L
46:49Academy. Class dismissed.
46:56>> [music]
47:03[music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of M4L Academy | Parental Rights 101: Landmark SCOTUS Rulings with Kate Anderson, ADF by Moms for Liberty, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,981 words across 1,337 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.