www.thegospelcoalition.org
Pivotal Term for Faith and Family at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s 2025 term concluded with four decisions that collectively represent significant victories for religious liberty, parental rights, and traditional moral frameworks. All four cases were decided 6–3 in favor of positions advocated by Christian legal organizations, establishing precedents that protect crucial rights and fundamental religious freedoms.
Here’s what you should know about these four cases.
1. Parental Rights Triumph over Curriculum Mandates
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, decided on June 27, the Court delivered perhaps its strongest affirmation of parental religious authority in public education. The decision struck down a Maryland county’s public school policy prohibiting parents from opting their children out of LGBT-inclusive curriculum materials.
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito said, “We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.” The Court explicitly rejected the school district’s position, stating, “When the government chooses to provide public benefits, it may not ‘condition the availability of [those] benefits upon a recipient’s willingness to surrender his religiously impelled status.’”
The case originated when Montgomery County Public Schools eliminated all opt-outs for elementary curriculum, including for books that promoted LGBT+ ideology. For example, one book asks 3- and 4-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBT+ activist and prostitute. Parents from Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox backgrounds—led by plaintiffs Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat—argued that the mandatory exposure violated their religious convictions about marriage and gender.
All four cases established precedents that protect crucial rights and fundamental religious freedoms.
“Government officials can’t force parents to give up that right or violate their religious beliefs in exchange for a public education,” says John Bursch, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. “Our Constitution forbids schools from indoctrinating children with uniform views on sexuality and gender—hotly debated topics—in conflict with their families’ religious beliefs.” The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the parents, characterized the decision as preventing schools from “unlawfully coming between parents and their kids and targeting them because of their religious beliefs.”
The ruling’s implications extend far beyond a single school district. By applying strict scrutiny to policies that burden religious exercise, the Court has created constitutional grounds for religious parents to seek accommodations across various curriculum areas—potentially including sex education and other sensitive topics that conflict with biblical teachings.
2. States Gain Authority to Defund Abortion Providers
The Court’s decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, issued on June 26, removed a legal obstacle that prevented states from excluding abortion providers from Medicaid programs. The ruling upheld South Carolina’s executive order directing taxpayer funds away from Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform abortions.
Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion emphasized that federal civil rights laws cannot be used to override state policy decisions on moral issues without clear congressional authorization. “The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people’s elected representatives, not unelected judges,” declared the Court.
Alliance Defending Freedom, which argued the case, emphasized the conscience rights dimension. “States should be free to fund real, comprehensive care and exclude organizations like Planned Parenthood that profit off abortion,” said Bursch. Multiple Christian organizations filed supporting briefs, including the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Family Policy Alliance, and Liberty Counsel.
The decision prevents forcing citizens with religious objections to indirectly fund abortion through tax dollars, while allowing states to direct resources toward “life-affirming women’s health and family planning clinics.” Legal experts anticipate the ruling will encourage similar defunding measures in other conservative states, potentially affecting Planned Parenthood’s operations nationwide.
3. Digital Protections for Childhood Innocence
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, decided June 27, upheld Texas legislation requiring age verification for pornographic websites—a victory for those seeking to protect children from harmful sexual content online. The decision validated state authority to implement reasonable restrictions shielding minors from pornography.
Justice Thomas’s majority opinion applied the standard of intermediate scrutiny, finding that the law only “incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults” while serving the important government interest of child protection. The Court dismissed privacy concerns about age verification, arguing that websites “have every incentive to assure users of their privacy.”
“This is a major victory for children, parents, and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography,” said Ken Paxton, Texas’s attorney general. “Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures.” Family Policy Alliance, which supported the law through its “Let Parents Parent” campaign, noted that the ruling gives the “constitutional stamp of approval” to similar legislation in 23 other states.
The decision recognizes the documented harms of early pornography exposure—with average first exposure now occurring between ages 7 and 13—and the links to addiction, sexual abuse, and human trafficking. By validating state power to enforce community moral standards in the digital sphere, the ruling supports the biblical understanding that childhood innocence deserves protection from sexualized content.
4. Gender Ideology Challenges Fail Constitutional Test
In United States v. Skrmetti, decided June 18, the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on experimental medical treatments for transgender minors. The decision rejected equal-protection challenges to legislation prohibiting puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries for minors seeking to present as the opposite sex.
Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion applied rational basis review rather than heightened scrutiny, finding that Tennessee’s law doesn’t constitute impermissible sex-based discrimination. The Court emphasized that “in the medical context, the mere use of sex-based language does not sweep a statute within the reach of heightened scrutiny” due to inherent biological differences between males and females.
Christian legal organizations played a central role in bringing fact-based arguments to the Court’s attention. Alliance Defending Freedom filed a supporting brief and characterized the legislation as protecting children from “harmful and unnecessary medical procedures,” while the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission highlighted parental rights concerns in their analysis.
The ruling affects laws in 25 states (including Tennessee) with protections for minors, leaving in place legislation that prevents experimental treatments with irreversible consequences. (See also: Supreme Court Protects Parental Rights in Transgender Treatment Case.)
Significant Win for Christian Liberty and Values
These four decisions collectively represent a pivotal moment for religious liberty and biblical values in American jurisprudence. The Court has affirmed that parents retain fundamental authority over their children’s moral and religious development, that states can protect community standards regarding sexuality and life, and that democratic processes—rather than judicial mandates—should resolve contentious moral questions.
The Court has affirmed that parents retain fundamental authority over their children’s moral and religious development.
For Christians navigating cultural tensions, these rulings provide crucial constitutional protections for living according to biblical convictions. The decisions establish precedents that could strengthen religious freedom across multiple domains while affirming that faith-based perspectives deserve respect in public-policy debates.
The consistent 6–3 majorities also suggest a Supreme Court increasingly willing to protect Christian values against secular progressive pressures, offering hope that constitutional interpretation will continue reflecting the nation’s historical commitment to religious liberty and parental rights.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
