SCOTUS Parental Rights Cases Spark Rally at Court Steps Led by McMahon and Moms for Liberty

The 100th anniversary of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a landmark Supreme Court decision affirming parental rights in education, brought together Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the conservative advocacy group Moms for Liberty on the steps of the Supreme Court Tuesday. Their gathering not only commemorated the 1925 case but also underscored ongoing national debates as the high court considers new cases poised to shape the future of parental involvement and educational policy in America.

Among those addressing the crowd was Rosalind Hanson, a plaintiff in the closely watched Mahmoud v. Taylor case. Hanson expressed optimism ahead of an expected Supreme Court ruling concerning Montgomery County Public Schools' refusal to let parents opt their elementary-age children out of reading storybooks that address gender and sexuality. "We are not trying to change the curriculum," Hanson emphasized, highlighting that most states permit opt-outs on sensitive issues—especially when religious or age appropriateness concerns arise. "The majority of states across the country have said you can have an opt-out for these very sensitive issues and topics, especially because of the religious component, but also because of the age appropriateness," she added.

Attorneys for Montgomery County Public Schools countered that exposing students to "a handful of storybooks featuring lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer characters" does not infringe on the religious exercise rights of parents or students, defending the school’s curricular choices in language arts. The nation’s highest court heard arguments on the case this April, with a decision expected in the coming weeks—a ruling that could significantly influence how schools nationwide handle parental objections rooted in faith or personal beliefs.

Moms for Liberty also highlighted United States v. Skrmetti as another pivotal case on the docket. This case challenges a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors identifying as transgender—legislation that has become a flashpoint in the contentious debate over gender identity and children's health care. With a Supreme Court decision imminent, the outcome could determine whether states possess the authority to restrict certain gender-affirming medical treatments for minors in the face of federal opposition.

Scarlett Johnson, a leader within Moms for Liberty, described the pending verdict as "big," urging supporters to push for laws "that will protect children from puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors regarding the issue of gender identity." Such remarks reflect a broader strategy among conservative groups to assert greater parental control over both classroom content and medical decisions affecting young people.

Secretary McMahon, reflecting on the centennial of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, called it "one of the most impactful education-related cases in American history," yet cautioned that the fight for parental rights remains unfinished. "Special interest and progressive activists still try to agitate for the government to override moms and dads in education," McMahon remarked. She cited concerns over "ideological indoctrination, sexually explicit curriculum, or hiding health and safety risks from parents," warning of continued efforts by the "progressive left" to interpose itself between families and their children’s education.

While the speakers’ words were heard clearly online, the scene in front of the Supreme Court was disrupted by a lone protester whose loud criticisms targeted officials including McMahon, Justice Clarence Thomas, and former President Donald Trump. The isolated interruption, however, did little to dampen the rally’s focus, even prompting Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., to inject humor into the situation by referencing the protester's sign and thanking them for highlighting what she described as the broader mental health crisis in the country.

With significant Supreme Court rulings on the horizon, both sides of the parental rights debate are bracing for outcomes that could redefine the balance between family authority, public education, and state regulation in classrooms and clinics across the United States.