This past week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered three significant decisions, representing important victories for taxpayers, families, and the protection of children.

States’ Authority Over Medicaid Funds Affirmed

In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the Court ruled 6-3, affirming that states have the right to determine which providers are qualified to serve their vulnerable populations without federal court intervention at the behest of special interest groups.

This ruling means states can block organizations like Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. While Planned Parenthood and other health organizations argued that this could harm low-income South Carolina residents who rely on Medicaid, Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated that any fallout from such funding decisions is “a policy question for Congress, not courts.”

Parental Rights Upheld

The Court also ruled 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor, establishing that parents have a constitutional right to opt their children out of curriculum that conflicts with their religious beliefs. This case originated in Montgomery County, Maryland, where schools mandated LGBTQ-inclusive curricula in elementary classrooms without notifying parents or providing an opt-out option.

Families from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox, sued the school board, asserting that this policy violated their First Amendment right to direct their children’s religious upbringing. The Court affirmed that parents, not school officials, hold primary authority over their children’s education, particularly when content conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs. Justice Samuel Alito, in the majority opinion, noted that the contested books

…unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes beyond mere “exposure.”

In his opinion for the Court, Justice Alito also points out:

The Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable. The books are unmistakably normative. They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.

This ruling sets a precedent for the importance of parents’ rights when it comes to controversial content in the public school system. It is a testament to our legal system that the U.S. Supreme Court continues to recognize the God-given rights of parents to guide the religious upbringing of their children.

Our children do not belong to the state. The message is clear: parental rights trump the government’s agenda to indoctrinate.

Protecting Children from Online Smut

Finally, in another 6-3 ruling, the Court decided Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, upholding Texas’s age verification requirements for websites hosting pornographic content. This decision validates more than 20 similar laws nationwide.

This case marks a major victory for states’ ability to protect children from harmful sexual content online. It is the culmination of a large, nationwide effort by lawmakers, advocates, and survivors of the porn industry. Our legal system has long recognized that the government has a vested interest in regulating obscene material, especially when it comes to safeguarding children from the detrimental effects of pornography. States have every right to enact laws that protect children from these harms, and such laws do not infringe upon anyone’s constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, emphasized that “Texas has a compelling interest in preventing minor’s access to pornography” because of the well-documented pernicious effects of that material on young people. He writes:

Consistent with this history, our precedents recognize that States can impose greater limits on children’s access to sexually explicit speech than they can on adults’ access.

…

Minors, however, have long been thought to be more susceptible to the harmful effects of sexually explicit content, and less able to appreciate the role it might play within a larger expressive work… They therefore possess “a more restricted right . . . to judge and determine for themselves what sex material they may read or see.” 

Common Sense Media released a study in 2024 which found that 15% of today’s teens first saw pornography online by age 10 (the average age is 12) and that the majority of these occurrences were unintentional. Overall, 73% of today’s teens have been exposed to pornography either accidentally or intentionally. As one author writes, “porn is as addictive as smoking, or more, except that what smoking does to your lungs, porn does to your brain.” The dangers of pornography exposure are immense, and it is critical that lawmakers enact laws to help prevent them from this harm.

In his opinion for the Court, Justice Thomas also points out:

Age verification is common when laws draw age-based lines, e.g., obtaining alcohol, a firearm, or a driver’s license. Obscenity is no exception. . . And as a practical matter, age-verification is necessary for an effective prohibition on minors accessing age-inappropriate sexual content, especially on the internet.

The Texas law mandates that websites with at least one-third sexual content verify users are 18 or older, imposing fines of up to $10,000 daily for non-compliance. Already, some pornographic sites have ceased operations in Texas due to this ruling.