Filing amicus briefs is crucial for us at CPRC because it allows us to extend our advocacy beyond direct litigation, influencing legal outcomes on a broader scale. These "friend of the court" briefs provide judges with additional perspectives, research, and arguments that might not be fully addressed by the parties involved, helping to ensure that the court considers the wider implications for parental rights. For us, this is a strategic way to amplify our mission, shape precedent-setting decisions, and protect families in cases we might not otherwise be directly involved in—maximizing our impact in the legal fight for parental autonomy.
CPRC and Our Duty–USA Urge Supreme Court to Protect Parental Rights and Teachers Who Refuse to Lie
The Child & Parental Rights Campaign, together with Our Duty–USA, has filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in Kimberly Ann Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools.
We are asking the Court to grant Ms. Polk’s petition for a writ of certiorari and review the Fourth Circuit’s decision dismissing her case.
Ms. Polk, a substitute teacher, was terminated after she refused to follow the school district’s Parental Secrecy Policy. That policy required her to conceal from parents that their children were asserting a discordant identity and rejecting their sex at school. It also required her to use preferred pronouns that did not correspond to the children’s sex.
Ms. Polk objected on religious grounds. She believes God created humans male and female and that children are not “born in the wrong body,” and rightfully objects to schools deceiving parents. She requested accommodations that would allow her to avoid violating her sincerely held beliefs. The district refused and fired her.
Why This Case Matters
Senior Litigation Counsel Mary E. McAlister, Counsel of Record on the brief, explains:
“The Polk case is critically important. It addresses the ubiquitous problem of school district secret transition policies that violate fundamental parental rights to direct mental health decision-making and to direct the religious upbringing of their children. It also addresses the critical issues of teachers’ rights to not facilitate the violation of parental rights through secret transition policies and to not have to violate their own free speech and free exercise rights by being compelled to lie to parents and vulnerable children.”
What Our Brief Argues
Our amicus brief emphasizes that Montgomery County’s Parental Secrecy Policy violates parents’ fundamental constitutional rights in two key ways:
- It conceals information critical to parents’ right to direct the upbringing and make mental health decisions for their children. Earlier this year in Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Supreme Court recognized that parents have a fundamental right to receive information necessary to exercise their rights when their children exhibit signs of gender dysphoria at school.
- It also interferes with parents’ fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The same school district was involved in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which addressed an “LGBTQ-inclusive” book policy. Our brief shows how the secrecy policy goes even further in violating parental free exercise rights.
Ms. Polk’s requested accommodations would have protected those parental rights. The district’s refusal and her termination further the violation.
The brief was prepared by CPRC attorneys Mary E. McAlister (Counsel of Record) and Vernadette R. Broyles, working with C. Erin Friday of Our Duty–USA.
Read the Brief
You can read the full amicus brief we filed here: [link to PDF of the brief]
Support the Fight!
The only way to root out this systemic evil that has captured our institutions is to fight and win in court and CPRC continues to fight in every way possible. But we cannot do so without your help. Please consider supporting CPRC’s ongoing work to defend parental rights and protect children.
CPRC Files Amicus Brief with U.S. Supreme Court Supporting School District That Protects Parental Rights
For the first time, we are standing with a California school board that chose to tell parents the truth.
The Child & Parental Rights Campaign, on behalf of Our Duty–USA, has filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of the Rocklin Unified School District (No. 25-1189).
Rocklin enacted a straightforward policy: if a child comes to school staff expressing gender confusion or requesting to be treated as the opposite sex, parents must be notified.
The teachers union challenged the policy as an “unfair labor practice.” California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) sided with the union and ordered the district to rescind the parental notification policies. After losing in the California courts, Rocklin is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case and reverse that decision.
We are proud to stand with them.
“We usually sue school districts for violating parental rights. In this case, we are proud to stand with a school district that did the right thing by notifying parents. No teachers union or state agency should be allowed to override a parent’s fundamental constitutional rights.”
— Vernadette Broyles, President & Chief Counsel, Child & Parental Rights Campaign
“RUSD’s parental notification policies protect parents’ fundamental rights to direct their children’s mental health decisions and religious upbringing. This brief urges the Supreme Court to grant review and make clear that parents — not unions or bureaucrats — have the constitutional right to know and participate when their child expresses gender confusion at school.”
— Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel, Child & Parental Rights Campaign
Why This Matters
This amicus brief highlights CPRC’s consistent mission: we support any entity that protects parental rights and challenge any entity that does not. A strong Supreme Court decision here would give courageous school boards nationwide the legal cover to prioritize parents over unions and state pressure.
Stand with us in the fight!
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. The brief likely defends Tennessee’s challenge to the U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 Title IX regulations, which redefine sex discrimination to include gender identity, arguing 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), advocating for petitioners seeking reversal of a Fourth Circuit ruling. The brief likely supports the petitioners—parents including Tamer Mahmoud—who challenge the Montgomery County, Maryland, school board’s policy of mandating LGBTQ-themed storybooks in the curriculum without opt-out options, arguing it violates their First Amendment free exercise rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing. CPRC’s involvement, through its counsel, emphasizes its commitment to defending parental rights and opposing what it views as coercive gender ideology in schools, aligning with the brief’s 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 likely defends Kansas’s challenge to the U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 Title IX regulations, which expand sex discrimination to include gender identity, arguing 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.
