This amicus brief filed in the Eighth Circuit case Dylan Brandt, et al. v. Leslie Rutledge, et al. (No. 21-2875), was submitted by Yaacov Sheinfeld and other parents, with legal representation from Mary E. McAlister, Vernadette R. Broyles, and Joel H. Thornton of the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. (CPRC), supporting Arkansas defendants-appellants and reversal of the district court’s ruling. The brief defends Arkansas’s Act 626, which bans gender-modification interventions for minors, arguing it protects children and preserves parental rights, aligning with CPRC’s mission to oppose transgender medical interventions for youth. CPRC’s involvement underscores its stance against the plaintiffs’ claims that the law violates equal protection and due process, and advocating for the state’s authority to enact such protective legislation.

This amicus brief filed in the Ninth Circuit case D.H., et al. v. Jami Snyder (No. 21-15668), was submitted by detransitioners and Detransvoices.org, including Keira Bell and others, with legal representation from Mary E. McAlister, Vernadette R. Broyles, and Joel H. Thornton of the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. (CPRC), supporting defendant-appellee Jami Snyder seeking affirmance of the district court’s ruling that upheld Arizona’s Medicaid exclusion of gender-modification interventions for minors. The brief presents the detransitioners’ experiences that such interventions can cause harm, aligning with CPRC’s advocacy for protecting youth and parental rights against expansive transgender healthcare policies. CPRC’s involvement underscores its opposition to the plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination under the Affordable Care Act and Equal Protection Clause, supporting the state’s authority to limit coverage.

This amicus brief, filed on behalf of Our Duty - USA by the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. (CPRC), supports teacher John Kluge in his Seventh Circuit appeal of the district court’s decision that upheld the Brownsburg Community School Corporation’s revocation of Kluge’s religious accommodation to use students’ last names instead of their preferred transgender names. CPRC, represented by attorneys Mary E. McAlister and Vernadette R. Broyles argues that the school’s policy violates Kluge’s Title VII religious freedom rights, asserting the accommodation posed no undue hardship. The brief emphasizes CPRC’s stance on protecting Kluge’s rights against the school district’s ideological overreach.

This amicus brief filed in the Eleventh Circuit case Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of the State of Alabama (No. 22-11707), was submitted by detransitioners, represented by Vernadette R. Broyles, Mary E. McAlister, and Joel H. Thornton of the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. (CPRC), in support of Alabama’s appeal to reverse a district court ruling that blocked the state’s ban on gender-modification interventions for minors. The brief argues that the experiences of detransitioners—individuals who underwent  “gender transition” and returned to their natal sex—support Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, emphasizing potential harms of such medical interventions and aligning with CPRC’s advocacy for parental rights and child protection. CPRC’s involvement highlights its stance against transgender medical treatments for youth, urging the court to uphold the state’s legislative authority over the plaintiffs’ equal protection and parental rights claims.

This amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court of Virginia case Peter Vlaming v. West Point School Board (Record No. 211061), was submitted by a group of medical professionals, including Quentin Van Meter, M.D., and seven others, in support of petitioner Peter Vlaming, with legal representation provided by Mary E. McAlister of the Child & Parental Rights Campaign (CPRC). The brief argues that Vlaming’s refusal to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns aligns with scientific and medical perspectives on biological sex, supporting his claim that the school board violated his free speech and religious exercise rights under the Virginia Constitution by firing him. CPRC’s involvement, through McAlister as counsel, underscores its advocacy for Vlaming’s position, which represents a defense of conscience and parental rights against school policies enforcing gender identity pronoun usage. The filing challenges the lower court’s dismissal of Vlaming’s claims, seeking reinstatement of his lawsuit against the West Point School Board.

This amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Ken Paxton (No. 23-1122), was submitted by The Matthew XVIII Group and The Reisman Institute, with legal support from Mary E. McAlister and Vernadette R. Broyles of the Child & Parental Rights Campaign (CPRC), supporting Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General, in asking the Supreme Court to affirm the Fifth Circuit’s ruling upholding Texas’ age-verification law for accessing online pornography. The brief argues that  the law protects minors from harmful content, a stance consistent with CPRC’s mission to safeguard children and uphold parental rights. CPRC’s involvement highlights its opposition to the Free Speech Coalition’s (an organization of pornography producers), challenge of the state’s authority to regulate such material to prevent exploitation and harm to youth.

This amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Jonathan Skrmetti, et al. (No. 23-477), was submitted by Partners for Ethical Care and various individuals, including Kevin and Charmagne Cox, by Mary E. McAlister and Vernadette R. Broyles of the Child & Parental Rights Campaign (CPRC), backing Tennessee respondents and affirmance of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. The brief defends Tennessee’s law banning gender-modification interventions for minors, arguing that the law protects children from experimental medical interventions, a position consistent with CPRC’s focus on parental rights and child welfare. CPRC’s involvement highlights its opposition to the U.S. government’s challenge, which claims the law violates equal protection and due process, supporting instead the state’s authority to regulate such healthcare practices.

This amicus brief filed in the First Circuit case Amber Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School Board, et al. (No. 24-1509), was submitted by the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. (CPRC), with Mary E. McAlister as counsel, supporting parent Amber Lavigne’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal of her case. The brief argues that the school’s actions—allowing staff to affirm Lavigne’s child’s transgender identity and provide a chest binder without parental consent—violate Lavigne’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to direct her child’s upbringing, a stance central to CPRC’s advocacy for parental authority. CPRC’s direct involvement as amicus curiae underscores its position against school policies that exclude parents from decisions involving gender identity, pushing for judicial recognition of Lavigne’s fundamental parental rights.

This amicus brief filed in the Sixth Circuit case State of Tennessee, et al. v. Miguel Cardona, et al. (No. 24-5588), was submitted by the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. (CPRC), with Mary E. McAlister, Vernadette R. Broyles, Ernest G. Trakas, and Athina M. Giouvalakis as counsel, supporting plaintiffs-appellees Tennessee and intervenors like the Christian Educators Association International in seeking affirmation of the district court’s ruling that enjoined implementation of the U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 Title IX regulations, which redefined “sex” to include gender identity. The brief argues that such federal rules infringe on state sovereignty and parental rights, a key focus of CPRC’s advocacy. CPRC’s involvement emphasizes its opposition to mandatory gender identity policies in schools, aligning with the plaintiffs’ claim that the regulations exceed federal authority and undermine local control over education.

This amicus brief, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case Tamer Mahmoud, et al. v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al. (No. 24-297), was submitted by Our Duty–USA and Partners for Ethical Care, with legal support from Mary E. McAlister and Vernadette R. Broyles of the Child & Parental Rights Campaign (CPRC), asking the Court to reverse a Fourth Circuit ruling against parents including Tamer Mahmoud—who challenged the Montgomery County, Maryland, school board’s policy of mandating LGBTQ-themed storybooks in the curriculum without opt-out option. The brief adds other parents’ voices to the plaintiff parents’ argument that the policy violates their First Amendment free exercise rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing. CPRC’s involvement emphasizes its commitment to defending parental rights and opposing what it views as coercive gender ideology in schools, aligning with the plaintiffs’ push to reinstate parental notification and opt-out accommodations.

This amicus brief filed in the Tenth Circuit case State of Kansas, et al. v. United States Department of Education, et al. (No. 24-3097), was submitted by the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc. (CPRC), with Mary E. McAlister, Vernadette R. Broyles, Ernest G. Trakas, and Athina M. Giouvalakis as counsel, supporting plaintiffs-appellees including Kansas in seeking affirmation of a district court ruling. The brief defends Kansas’s challenge to the U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 Title IX regulations, which expanded the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity,” thus expanding protections against discrimination in education to include those who assert a “gender identity” that contradicts their sex. In the brief, CPRC argued that such federal overreach undermines state authority and parental rights to control children’s education and upbringing, a core CPRC priority. CPRC’s involvement reinforces its stance against policies mandating gender identity accommodations in schools, aligning with the plaintiffs’ claim that the regulations exceed statutory authority and violate constitutional principles.