Earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh rightly pointed out that the highest court in the land is not hearing enough cases, and this week’s decision shows how this neglect leaves parental rights unprotected. The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the certiorari petition in Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education is a glaring example of this neglect. Here, parents sought to appeal a lower court’s decision that claimed they lacked the legal standing to challenge a school policy related to gender identity confusion.
When the legal system dismisses a case for lacking standing, it means it refuses to delve into the substantive issues at hand – issues that affect real people in meaningful ways. This was clearly seen when two supposed conservative judges appointed by Trump outvoted Reagan-appointed Judge Paul Niemeyer in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They ruled that parents lacked standing to contest school guidelines that allow students to engage in gender transition plans with school principals without parental consent or knowledge.
Shockingly, not even four of the nine Supreme Court justices thought it was worthwhile to address whether these parents deserved a day in court. This stonewalling prevents the crucial debate on parents’ rights over transgender policies in schools, which continues to ignite cultural tensions across the nation. The high court has been continually sidestepping critical issues related to the transgender trend, making its recent decision yet another evasive move.
Judge Niemeyer’s dissenting opinion illustrated a sound argument for these parents’ legal standing. He criticized his colleagues for their narrow interpretation that parents lacked injury because their own children were not undergoing gender transitions or support plans under the school’s policy. According to their flawed reasoning, no imminent injury meant no standing.
Niemeyer dismantled this rationale, emphasizing that the policy injures parents by deliberately excluding them from significant aspects of their children’s lives, such as decisions surrounding gender “transitions.” Schools actively aiding these transitions while keeping parents in the dark directly undermines parental rights and responsibilities. The supposed injury here is the policy’s inherent secrecy.
Since the landmark 1923 case of Meyer v. Nebraska, the courts have consistently upheld that parents hold primary responsibility for their children’s welfare and education. Parents’ rights are a bedrock principle affirming that they should be deeply involved in pivotal decisions affecting their children’s lives. By sidelining parents, the school system essentially usurps their rightful role and prevents them from providing essential guidance and aid to their children.
The Supreme Court’s denial to review Niemeyer’s compelling arguments is a disservice to justice itself. The justices let the 4th Circuit’s misguided decision stand, which means these parents are denied the opportunity even to argue why they should have their day in court. Should a child be aided by a school in undergoing a gender transition without parental consent, the parents may only learn about it after irreversible damage is done.
This deliberate blindness on the part of the Supreme Court is not just poor jurisprudence; it is a profound injustice. Parents must remain vigilant and demand that their rights to be involved in their children’s upbringing and welfare are restored and respected.
Liberty requires eternal vigilance. That's why we work hard to deliver news about issues that threaten your liberty.
