Two Supreme Court Decisions Restore Power Where It Belongs: With Parents.

In a single day, the Supreme Court delivered two landmark rulings that sent a clear message: when it comes to raising children, parents—and not government bureaucrats, school boards, or tech executives—hold the primary authority.

These rulings raise an important question: how will they impact Mississippi families?

Both decisions mark a pivotal moment in the fight for parental rights in America. One protects children from online pornography. The other reaffirms parents’ rights to opt their children out of public school instruction that conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. Taken together, these decisions represent a major course correction from a leftist culture that has too often sidelined or ignored parents in favor of centralized government control.

Online Porn Protection for Children: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton upheld Texas’s age-verification law requiring pornographic websites to confirm users are 18 or older. In doing so, the Court restored the ability of states to protect minors from pornography, an issue that has become more urgent as graphic content is now just a click away for any child with a smartphone.

First, the Supreme Court confirmed the government has a legitimate authority to regulate children’s access to pornography. “Obscenity has never enjoyed First Amendment protection, and material harmful to minors may be regulated even if not obscene for adults.” (Thomas, Slip Op. at 9).

The Court further affirmed the government's role in protecting children from such harmful materials, including online content: “States have long held the authority to protect children from harmful sexual materials. The Constitution does not strip them of that power merely because the internet now makes such materials easier to access.” (Slip Op. at 14).

For years, some have argued that any effort to regulate access to adult material online is unconstitutional. But the Court rightly ruled that the government’s interest in protecting children outweighs vague appeals to anonymous adult porn browsing. Age-verification laws, the Court affirmed, do not trample on free speech—they serve a vital public purpose of simply protecting children. 

Decades of research confirm that exposure to pornography fuels higher rates of depression, anxiety, violent behavior, sexual promiscuity, abuse, trafficking, and warped views of relationships between men and women, especially among young people. The Court ruled that Texas absolutely has the power to enact laws protecting children from these harms. 

Additionally, the Court ruled such laws do not infringe on anyone’s constitutionally-protected freedom of speech, including that of the porn industry or of adult porn searchers. Sadly. “Adults remain free to access lawful sexual content. Age verification requirements do not ban speech; they regulate the means of access to ensure that minors are not swept into the same spaces.” (Thomas, Slip Op. at 23). “New technologies cannot be a constitutional shield for those who profit from making sexual content available to minors.” (Thomas, Slip Op. at 25).

Bottom line: The Court ruled that Texas’s law met the “intermediate scrutiny” standard because it protected minors from internet pornography while only incidentally burdening adult speech. No matter how sad it is that some argue the First Amendment protects such filth, which communicates no ideas, this is an enormous victory for the protection of children.

Paxton Impact: 

Nearly half the states in this country have passed similar laws as Texas, and this decision clears the way for a nationwide movement to require digital gatekeeping where it matters most. It also opens the door to stronger legislation—like the proposed federal SCREEN Act—that would require platforms to implement meaningful safeguards against the exploitation of minors. 

Mississippi has already passed an age verification law, thanks to determined and courageous Mississippi lawmakers. The Supreme Court’s decision underpins Mississippi’s authority to enforce age-checks, empowering their partnership with parents to block our minors from harmful, explicit online content.

Religious Freedom in the Classroom: Mahmoud v. Taylor

Mahmoud v. Taylor may prove even more consequential. At issue was whether a Maryland school district could require elementary students to participate in instruction using LGBTQ+-themed storybooks, without giving parents advance notice or the opportunity to opt-out based on religious convictions.

The district argued that exposure to these materials was essential to promoting ”their” version of diversity and inclusion that they wanted to indoctrinate school children with. In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court saw through that justification, concluding that denying opt-out rights violated parents’ First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The Court held that government cannot force parents to subject their children to instruction that conflicts with their religious beliefs, especially on sensitive matters of sex, morality, values, and family structure. The ruling draws on longstanding precedent that recognizes the foundational role of parents in determining the moral and spiritual upbringing of their children.

Citing parents’ “sacred obligation” to raise their children, the Court stated, “We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that ‘substantially interfere with the religious development’ of children.” (Alito, Slip Op. at 17, 18).

The Court determined the school was imposing government values via these LGBTQ+ materials on children at the expense of children, parent’s religious beliefs, and the family bond.  “Forcing parents to surrender their children to instruction that contradicts their faith substantially interferes with the religious development of children and severs the crucial bond between parents and children.” (Alito, Slip Op. at 21).

The Court further held, “These books impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are ‘hostile’ to their parents’ religious beliefs. And the books exert upon children a psychological ‘pressure to conform’ to specific viewpoints.” (Alito, Slip Op. at 21). “The books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.” (Alito, Slip Op. at 22).

The Court rejected the outlandish arguments that parents could simply teach their views at home or choose private education. “Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot ‘condition’ its ‘availability’ on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.” (Alito, Slip Op. at 32).

Bottom line: The Court applied the “strict scrutiny” standard and ruled that the District’s policy was neither necessary nor narrowly tailored, especially because the district allowed opt-outs in other contexts while refusing them here. The mandatory government values-laden instruction, the Court held, imposed a substantial burden on parents’ sacred right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

Mahmoud Impact: 

Public schools now have a clear mandate: when topics touch on religion and conscience, transparency and parental consent are not optional—they’re constitutionally required. Schools should reinforce what parents teach at home, and teach the time-tested virtues that built our Western civilization. But whenever the curriculum contradicts parents’ religious convictions, they should always be able to opt out. 

RE: Mississippi— We need to now ensure these rights are protected with a Parental Bill of Rights next session. For the past three sessions, similar bills that would protect Mississippi parents and children died in committee. 

Passing a Mississippi PBOR will guarantee parents’ fundamental rights to direct the upbringing, education, care, and custody of their children as so many other states have. The Supreme Court has gone out of their way to affirm the rights of Mississippi parents if we as a state will only assert them. 

Will we? 

A Cultural Shift Back to Common Sense

These decisions are victories not only in the courtroom, but in the broader battle over whether the culture that influences our children will be a culture of virtue that builds strong families and communities and molds responsible citizens—or one of unbridled license that destroys them.

In Paxton, the Court recognized that no right, including anonymous porn internet access, is absolute when weighed against the compelling interest of protecting children from exposure to such harm. In Mahmoud, the justices reaffirmed that religious liberty includes the right to raise one’s children according to faith-based convictions, even when left wing bureaucrats disagree.

These cases will have ripple effects across the country. States like Mississippi can now boldly enforce our age-verification laws without fear of immediate court reversal. And school districts must think twice before dismissing parental concerns about curriculum—and in many cases, they may be constitutionally required to give parents an opt-out option to material that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

And most importantly, families can feel emboldened to reclaim their rightful role to raise their children as their faith calls them to.

Let’s work with our Mississippi Lawmakers to take the next steps in protecting virtuous education, religious freedom, parental rights, and the sacred bond between parents and children—and pass a Parental Bill of Rights next session.

Are you with us?

Please check out previous stories here.