Wagner Center Joins U.S. Supreme Court Brief Defending Fundamental Rights of Parents

Coalition Urges Supreme Court to Protect Parents from Government Policies That Displace Their Authority Over the Care and Upbringing of Their Children

SPRING ARBOR, Mich. — September 15, 2026 — The Wagner Faith & Freedom Center at Spring Arbor University today joined a major coalition of national organizations and leaders in filing an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court of the United States defending the fundamental constitutional right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children.

The brief was filed in International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson, No. 25-840, a closely watched parental-rights case arising from a Washington State law affecting parents whose minor children leave home seeking what the State defines as “protected health care services,” including gender-transition interventions. The Supreme Court granted review on June 29, 2026, and oral argument is scheduled for December 7, 2026.

The Wagner Center joined Advancing American Freedom and a broad coalition that includes the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, Coalition for Jewish Values, Concerned Women for America, Moms for America, Moms for Liberty, National Religious Broadcasters, ParentsUSA, Young America’s Foundation, and numerous other national and state organizations and leaders.

At the heart of the case is a foundational constitutional question: May government deliberately displace parents from decisions concerning the care and upbringing of their own children and then prevent those parents from obtaining judicial review until the threatened harm has already occurred?

The brief argues that the answer must be no.

“Parents do not receive their authority over their children from the State,” said the Hon. William Wagner (Ret.), WFFC Distinguished Chair for Faith & Freedom. “The family precedes government, and the responsibility of mothers and fathers to nurture, protect, educate, and guide their children is among the most deeply rooted liberties in our constitutional tradition. Government exists to safeguard that liberty—not to quietly take the parents’ place.”

Washington law permits certain state-licensed shelters receiving a runaway minor seeking specified services to notify the State rather than the child's parents. The amici argue that parents should not be required to wait until their child has been removed from their decision-making authority and potentially subjected to life-altering interventions before they may seek protection in federal court.

The brief places the controversy within the much larger history of parental liberty. Drawing upon John Locke, William Blackstone, James Wilson, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Story, James Kent, the Reconstruction-era Congress, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent, the amici demonstrate that parental authority was understood long before the Fourteenth Amendment as a natural responsibility and essential component of ordered liberty.

That historical record is especially important because the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the care, custody, and control of children as a fundamental liberty. The brief traces that principle through such landmark decisions as Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Troxel v. Granville, and Washington v. Glucksberg. It also relies upon the Court's recent parental-rights jurisprudence.

Professor Wagner emphasized that the case reaches well beyond the particular medical and political controversy surrounding gender transition.

“This case ultimately asks a much older and more consequential question: Whose children are they? Our constitutional tradition has never treated children as mere creatures of the State. When government can separate vulnerable children from parental guidance precisely when those children most need the wisdom, protection, and love of their families, a fundamental boundary on governmental power has been crossed.”

The brief gives particular attention to the historical relationship between parental liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment. It recounts how the destruction of family relationships under slavery—including the inability of parents to protect, educate, and retain custody of their own children—helped inform Reconstruction-era understandings of liberty. Congressional debates surrounding the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments repeatedly treated the restoration and protection of the parent-child relationship as an essential attribute of freedom.

The amici therefore argue that few fundamental rights can claim deeper roots in American history and tradition than the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

“The constitutional principle here should unite Americans across political and religious lines,” Wagner said. “A government powerful enough to substitute its judgment for parents whenever officials disagree with a family's deeply held convictions is a government powerful enough to threaten every family. Parental liberty protects the family by limiting the State—and that limitation protects all of us.”

The Wagner Center's participation in International Partners for Ethical Care continues its work before the Supreme Court and other courts on questions involving parental rights, religious liberty, freedom of conscience, education, and constitutional limits on governmental power.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson on December 7, 2026. The amici urge the Court to rule for the petitioners and reaffirm that parents may seek judicial protection when government policy threatens their fundamental constitutional role in the care and upbringing of their children.