supreme court

Most Americans Support Children’s Right to a Mother and Father, New Poll Finds

Eleven years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court radically redefined marriage to include the union of same-sex couples in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the Court’s decision, claimed the Constitution’s promise of “liberty” required allowing two people of the same sex to “marry” “on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex” because marriage “embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.”

In affirming this “right,” Justice Kennedy made a fatal error: He prioritized the rights and desires of adults over the natural rights and desires of children.

Children have the right to be known, raised, loved and nurtured by their natural mother and father. “Same-sex marriage” erases that right.

Because same-sex couples are in an inherently infertile relationship, they must acquire children (who will be biologically unrelated to at least one of them) by other means: adoption, IVF, sperm and egg donation, and surrogacy.

Justice Kennedy – intentionally or not – threw the door wide open for same-sex couples to acquire, purchase, create and adopt children through any means necessary, robbing them of their right to know and be loved by their own mother and father.

Thankfully, many Americans are beginning to wake up to this reality.

According to a new national survey, conservative and moderate likely general election voters express broad agreement on children’s rights: 82% believe no child should be deliberately denied a mother or a father.

“For years, the left has portrayed the belief that children deserve both their mother and father as a fringe view,” said Katy Faust, founder and president of Them Before Us, in a press release. “This poll proves otherwise.”

Faust added,

Among conservative and moderate voters, there is overwhelming agreement that children have a right to both parents whenever possible.
At a time when the political right is often described as divided, this issue stands out as one of remarkable unity.

The poll also found that of surveyed conservative and moderate voters:

  • 96% say it is important for a child to be raised with both an involved mother and an involved father.
  • 78% agree that when a child’s needs conflict with an adult’s desires, the child’s needs should come first.
  • 66% reject the claim that being raised by same-sex parents is no different for a child than being raised by an adoptive mother and father.
  • 63% agree that children are harmed when they lose their mother or father to be raised in a same-sex household.

Them Before Us has begun the Greater Than Campaign, a national coalition working to reclaim marriage on behalf of children.

Many “parents, faith leaders, scholars, lawyers, and advocacy organizations” have joined the campaign, including Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, the Colson Center, the American Family Association, Allie Beth Stuckey, Josh Hammer, Michael Knowles and more.

“The conviction that children should come before adult desires remains a defining value shared across the conservative movement,” Faust said.

Eleven years after Obergefell, the ruling’s dire consequences for children are becoming increasingly clear. That’s why support for same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships has been declining among all U.S. adults and particularly among conservatives.

We must all continue to speak the truth in love as we have opportunity, teaching our fellow Americans that children’s right to their mother and father is greater than the right of same-sex couples to obtain them.

The fight to protect children’s rights is just beginning. Learn more about the Greater Than Campaign.

Related articles and resources:

Defending the Rights of Children

Children’s Rights Should Always Come Before Adults’ Desires

Supreme Court Declines Petition Challenging ‘Same-Sex Marriage’ Ruling

It’s Good the Left Fears the Overturning of Gay ‘Marriage’

Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children and Society

Why Focus on the Family Believes Obergefell Must Be Struck Down

Support for Same-Sex Marriage and Relationships Declines Among Conservatives

Photo from Shutterstock.

Blockbuster Supreme Court Ruling: Girls Sports Are for Girls

In a blockbuster decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that states are allowed to protect girls and women’s sports with laws that keep sports separate based on biology.

It’s a tremendous victory for common sense and for girls and women who want to compete on a level playing field – without boys and men who claim to be female.

The opinion combined two cases, State of West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox, in which “transgender”-identified male athletes challenged West Virginia and Idaho laws protecting girls and women’s sports. The decision upholds 27 other states with laws or regulations safeguarding girls and women’s athletic opportunities, many of which have been challenged by males who claim to be female.

The Supreme Court held that Title IX allows states to protect girls sports from male athletes:

Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.

The opinion made clear that “sex” in Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs, “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.” The Court added:

The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the majority opinion.

In a press release, Focus on the Family President Jim Daly praised the decision:

Today’s Supreme Court decision on women’s sports is a win for reality.
It is also a victory for the generations who labored for decades to ensure that our daughters would have the right to compete fairly in athletic events. Radical activists have threatened not only that right but the physical safety of girls and women as well.

Justice Kavanaugh began his opinion by explaining the impact of Title IX for girls and women:

Title IX transformed American sports and American life. Enacted in 1972, that landmark law promoted equal opportunity for female student-athletes and has facilitated the extraordinary growth of women’s and girls’ sports over the past 54 years.

He noted there are “enduring” and “inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance,” including, “height, weight, strength, speed, endurance, and jumping ability.” Kavanaugh added:

Participation in sports has enabled countless American women and girls to be on a team, to take part in the human drama of athletic competition, to overcome the agony of defeat and know the thrill of victory. And those lessons and experiences in sports have empowered millions of American women who have gone on to thrive in all aspects of American life.

The Court also considered the transgender-identified male athletes’ contention that West Virginia and Idaho’s laws were unconstitutional, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating against “transgender individuals – specifically, biological males who identify as female.”

The Court rejected this argument, with Kavanaugh writing:

The States’ interests in ensuring safety and competitive fairness amply justify the States in maintaining women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. Under the Equal Protection Clause, therefore, schools may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.

Idaho was the first state in the nation to protect girls sports from male athletes, passing the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020.

Just two weeks later, the American Civil Liberties Union, which used to support women’s rights in education, filed a lawsuit challenging the Act on behalf of Lindsay Hecox, who was born male but lives as if he were a woman. Hecox wanted to run with the ladies on Boise State University’s cross-country team.

A federal district court halted enforcement of the Fairness Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that ruling.

In 2021, West Virginia was the fifth state to pass a law protecting female athletics. The Sports Act, HB 3293, clarified that male and female sports teams in public secondary schools and colleges must be based on biological sex.

Again, the law was challenged in court by the ACLU along with Lambda Legal, another radical LGBT activist group.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson (BPJ) and his mother, Heather Jackson, who is raising the now 15-year-old boy as if he were a girl. A federal district judge ruled in favor of the state law, but that sensible ruling was overturned by the U.S Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal aid nonprofit, intervened in the lawsuit and served as co-counsel with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. 

ADF CEO, President, and Chief Counsel Kristen Waggoner applauded the Supreme Court’s decision, saying:

Policies that ignore biological truth hurt people. In West Virginia, the male plaintiff defeated more than 470 girls over 1,400 times, won the women’s state championship in shot put, and sexually harassed our client Adaleia Cross in the girls’ locker room. Adaleia’s story is not unique. After today’s decision, the 23 states still on the sidelines have run out of excuses. Protect women’s sports. Our girls have waited long enough.

In April 2025, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education launched a Title IX Special Investigations Team to investigate schools and states that allow boys in girls sports. Since then, the DOJ has filed lawsuits against California, Maine and Minnesota for violating Title IX, and the Special Investigations Team has initiated dozens of investigations into school districts for discriminating against girls and women.

While the Court’s decision does not force these states to change their policies, it does provide ammunition for the federal government as it investigates and challenges these states.

It also lends support to girls and women who filed lawsuits against schools and states that allowed boys to compete against them, and it could open the floodgates for even more lawsuits.

The Court has ruled the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and Title IX permit states to enact laws protecting girls sports. In the future, the Court may consider whether Title IX requires states to do so.

The Daily Citizen has been reporting on the problem of boys in girls sports since we first began publishing. We are thankful for this major decision and will continue to keep our readers informed about this issue – along with others that affect faith, families and freedom.

Related articles and resources:

ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Idaho Law Protecting Girl’s and Women’s Sports

Biologically Male Collegiate Athlete Wins Female Runner of the Week Award

Biologically Male Runner Decides to Compete as a Woman in College Cross Country

Collegiate Women Athletes File Motion to Keep Biological Males Out of Women’s Sports in Idaho

Idaho Governor Signs Laws Protecting Women’s Sports and Keeping Birth Certificates Based on Biology – Activists and Media Call this ‘Discriminatory’

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

Middle School Girls Who Protested ‘Trans’ Athlete Are Banned From Future Competition

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Boys in Girls Sports

West Virginia Passes ‘Save Girls Sports’ Act

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

Photo from Getty Images.

Supreme Court to Decide if Washington State Can ‘Transition’ Runaway Children

The U.S. Supreme Court will take up a challenge to Washington state laws that allow the state to help runaway children receive abortions and “transgender” medical interventions – puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries – without parental consent or knowledge.

The Court announced on June 29, 2026, that it was granting certiorari in the case International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. (IPEC) v. Ferguson, which presents the question:

Whether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decision-making role as to “gender transitions” of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them.

The case began in April 2023 when Governor Bob Ferguson signed SB 5999, “Supporting youth and young adults seeking protected health care services,” into law, as the Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW) reported.

The Focus on the Family ally explained:

SB 5599, as signed by the Governor, allows shelters to assist children in obtaining abortions, puberty blockers, gender “reassignment” surgeries, or any other health services prescribed by a doctor to treat “dysphoria,” without contacting police, CPS, or the child’s parents. 
The bill report states that a shelter can be classified as “any person, unlicensed youth shelter, or runaway and homeless youth program.” This means that a child could seek shelter at any stranger’s house and that person would not need to alert police that they were harboring a runaway child. This opens the door for countless threats to the safety of minors across the state. (Their emphasis.)

The bill defined “protective health care services” as “gender-affirming treatment and reproductive healthcare services that are lawful in the state of Washington.”

“Gender affirming treatment” is a euphemism for body-damaging, experimental, irreversible medical interventions like puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries that attempt to make a person look like the opposite sex.

“Reproductive health care services” includes abortions and the removal of healthy organs, like “genitals, gonads, the uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and breasts.”

In August 2023, America First Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation against Governor Jay Inslee, Attorney General Robert Ferguson, and Ross Hunter, Secretary of the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families. Plaintiffs in the case a group of eight parents and two organizations, IPEC and Advocates Protecting Children.

America First Legal was joined by Schaerr Jaffe LLP, and Joel Ard, who brought the pre-enforcement challenge, arguing the statute deprived some parents “of their fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to direct the care and upbringing of their children, as well as their rights to the free exercise of religion, due process, free speech, and equal protection.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, agreeing with a lower court, held that the parents and organizations did not have standing, meaning they did not have a direct stake in the outcome and had not yet been injured – despite the fact that the parents had children who rejected their sex, including one child who had previously run away from home.

The 9th Circuit ruled, in July 2025, that the plaintiffs had not shown they had “suffered or will imminently suffer an injury in fact.”

Remember, this is a law which allows any person or shelter in Washington to hide children, along with critical mental and psychological health information – from their parents. But the 9th Circuit stated the parents could not challenge this unconstitutional law which deprived them of their right to raise children according to their deeply held beliefs.

The case has ramifications beyond Washington, as California, Minnesota, New Mexico and Illinois have similar laws or executive orders in place.

International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. (IPEC) v. Ferguson  could also affect cases in Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Texas and other states which have removed children from parents’ custody because they would not allow damaging transgender medical interventions.

International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. (IPEC) v. Ferguson will be heard in late 2026 or early 2027. The Daily Citizen will keep you informed about this important parental rights case.

Related articles and resources:

Activist Erin Friday on Protecting Kids and Fighting Gender Ideology

Colorado Bill Would Force Parents to Accept Child’s New ‘Gender Identity’

Erin Friday on Family Courts, ‘Transgender’ Sanctuary States and Fighting to Protect Parental Rights

HHS Tells States Not to Remove Children From Parents Who Affirm Biological Reality

U.S. Supreme Court Axes Protections for Deep State

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald J. Trump can fire Democrat members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), overruling Humphrey’s Executor, a 90-year-old Court precedent that limited presidents’ ability to remove officers of so-called “independent agencies.”

The Court’s Ruling

“Nearly 250 years ago, the Framers decided to vest ‘[t]he executive Power’ in one person – ‘a President of the United States of America,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Court’s majority.

“Since its creation in 1914, the FTC has accumulated vast rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory powers under more than 80 statutes,” Roberts continued.

“Its powers, however, do not belong to the President or his appointees alone; they instead belong to five Commissioners, each of whom serves for seven years and may be removed by the President only ‘for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,’” Roberts explained, citing the Federal Trade Commission Act which insulated commissioners from democratic accountability.

“We hold that such protections from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.”

Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Thomas joined most of the Court’s opinion, while Justice Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

Case Background

The present case stems from President Trump’s decision in early 2025 to fire two Democrat FTC Commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, telling them their “continued service on the FTC [was] inconsistent with [his] Administration’s priorities.”

However, President Trump did not assert that they were inefficient, negligent or malfeasant in office, which, under the FTC Act, would have allowed him to remove the commissioners “for-cause.”

Rather, the president removed them “pursuant to [his] authority under Article II of the Constitution” which states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Presidential Power

The Constitution’s framers “rejected a committee-style Executive Branch in favor of a unitary and accountable President,” the chief justice stated. The president’s power included his ability to remove executive officers at will.

In 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed this precedent after President Wilson fired Portland’s postmaster, Frank Myers, who then sued the president for backpay. In Myers v. United States, the Court rejected Myers’ suit and “reaffirmed the President’s power to fire his subordinates at will.”

Nine years later, the Court issued Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which “arose out of President Roosevelt’s decision to fire one of President Hoover’s appointees to the Federal Trade Commission, William Humphrey,” two years into his seven-year term.

After Humphrey died, the executor of his estate sued for backpay. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently ruled unanimously in favor of Humphrey, carving out an exception to Myers, deciding that some executive officers’ jobs – including those of FTC commissioners – were “neither political nor executive,” and were therefore immune from being fired by the president except “for cause.”

In the present case (Trump v. Slaughter), the Court expressly overruled Humphrey’s Executor and greenlighted President Trump’s decision to fire Rebecca Slaughter.

Why It Matters

As Chief Justice Roberts concluded, “Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President. … Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

Down through history, Americans have treasured their ability to shape, change and correct their government at the ballot box in regularly held elections. This practice makes our government one that is “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.”

However, in recent decades, particularly in the 20th century, Congress repeatedly delegated its legislative powers to “independent agencies” in the executive branch which were insulated from the public, and above accountability. These agencies became known as the “fourth branch” of government or the “Administrative State.”

In Slaughter, the Court restores accountability to these agencies and ensures Americans happy or unhappy with executive branch agencies’ decisions know where to direct their thanks or ire: the democratically elected president of the United States.

As Dr. John Eastman writes in The Federalist, “The executive power … was vested in a single president precisely so the American people would know whom to praise or blame for the execution of federal law.”

“Accountability requires authority,” he adds. “A president who cannot remove those exercising executive power cannot truly be held responsible for how that power is exercised.”

The Court’s Slaughter decision serves as a reminder to all Americans of their responsibility to keep the government honest and accountable. If they’re unhappy with the state of things – now or in the future – it’s up to them to register to vote, get engaged and make their voices heard.

The case is Trump v. Slaughter.

Related articles and resources:

BREAKING – Supreme Court Sides with FDA and President Trump Over Abortion Pill Regulations

House Passes Bill Limiting Federal Judges’ Authority to Block Presidential Policies

Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Admin Requirement That Passports Display Biological Sex

Photo from Getty Images.

Washington Counselor Asks Court to Protect Free Speech

Brian Tingley, a Christian counselor in Washington state, is seeking the restoration of his constitutional rights after the recent U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision protecting counselors’ speech, Chiles v. Salazar.

Tingley is a licensed marriage and family therapist with over 20 years of experience who counsels adult and minor clients. He engages only in talk therapy: listening to clients, asking questions and helping them pursue behavioral changes according to their desires and goals.

As a Christian, Tingley affirms the Bible’s teachings on relationships, sexuality and marriage.

However, Washington state – prohibiting so-called “conversion therapy” – makes it illegal for Tingley to help minor clients leave unwanted homosexuality or embrace their biological sex. Washington requires him – and all counselors – to speak only in a state-approved way, pushing clients towards homosexuality or “transgenderism.”

This kind of speech code, however, is a clear violation of the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a momentous decision striking down Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Colorado’s law is essentially identical to Washington’s.

“While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech,” Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court’s majority in Chiles v. Salazar. “And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage.” So too with Brian Tingley.

Justice Gorsuch added, “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

As a result of the Court’s decision in Chiles, Tingley – who had previously challenged Washington’s law in court but lost – is asking a lower court to reconsider his case. He is being represented by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

“Washington’s law bans voluntary conversations based on the state’s ideological crusade to impose gender ideology and to reject common sense,” said ADF Senior Counsel Hal Frampton, director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives. “This is censorship pure and simple, and it violates the First Amendment — as affirmed recently in an 8-1 Supreme Court decision.”

Frampton added,

We are urging the district court to finally allow justice to prevail for Brian, protect his “inalienable right to think and speak freely,” and free him to provide excellent counseling to families and young people who seek his counseling.

Tingley isn’t the only counselor looking for his First Amendment rights to be restored in the wake of Chiles.

In May, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Terri Koschnick and Joy Buchman, licensed counselors who are challenging the Badger State’s law prohibiting counselors from helping minor clients with unwanted same-sex attraction and sexual identity confusion.

Hopefully, counselors nationwide will soon – thanks to Chiles – be free to help all individuals seeking to live according to a biblical sexual ethic. The Daily Citizen will keep you updated on important developments.

The case is Tingley v. Brown.

If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-800-A-Family (232-6459) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor or chaplain to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

We also offer local referrals for licensed counselors who align with the mission and values of Focus on the Family.

Related articles and resources:

The Supreme Court’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ruling: Four Truths You Should Know

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Counseling Censorship Case

Judge Dismisses Therapist’s Lawsuit Over Ban on Counseling for Same-Sex Attraction, Gender Identity

Christian Counselor Sues for Right to Talk to Minors About Same-Sex Attraction, Gender Identity Issues

Is Therapy to Leave Homosexuality Damaging? New Review Says, ‘No Proof of Harm’

Therapy Bans Threaten Religious Freedom, Free Speech and Parental Rights

Why We Support Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality

Photo from Alliance Defending Freedom.