International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson

Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions about the upbringing, health and care of their minor children. The government cannot displace that authority—and then prevent parents from asking a court to protect it.

American law has long recognized that parents bear the primary responsibility for raising their children and making consequential decisions on their behalf.

That principle does not disappear when a child experiences gender confusion. And it does not disappear when the government creates a system designed to withhold information from parents.

The Liberty Justice Center’s PARENTS Initiative has filed an amicus brief in International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson because parents must be able to challenge government policies that directly interfere with their constitutional authority over their own children.

This case is about more than standing.

The case challenges three Washington laws that have been expanded to allow youth shelters to decline to notify parents when a runaway minor seeks or receives “protected health care services,” including gender-affirming treatment.

The laws also provide pathways for qualifying minors to stay in licensed shelters for up to 90 days without parental permission or notification.

The parent petitioners in the case argue that these laws interfere with their constitutional right to direct the upbringing and care of their children. But the Ninth Circuit held that the parents lacked standing to challenge the laws because their injuries were allegedly too speculative.

That ruling gets Article III backwards.

Parents should not have to wait until they lose contact with their child, are denied notice after the fact or discover that irreversible decisions have already been made without their knowledge before they may seek relief in federal court.

“When the state strips parents of notice or the authority to make critical life decisions for their children, the result is an immediate constitutional harm.”—LJC’s Brief

This case therefore asks a fundamental question: When the government directly interferes with parents’ authority over their own children, may those parents challenge that interference in federal court?

Our answer is yes.

At the nation’s founding, the invasion of a private legal right was itself an actionable injury. A person whose rights were directly violated did not need to prove additional financial, physical or consequential harm before seeking judicial relief.

The constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the oldest and most deeply rooted liberty interests in American law. When the state excludes parents from critical decisions about a minor child’s health, medical care or welfare, it directly invades that right.  Article III does not require parents to wait for the harm to become irreversible.

Why this case matters nationwide.

Across the country, public-school families have challenged nondisclosure policies that conceal information about a child’s social transition from parents. In many cases, courts have declined to reach the constitutional merits because they conclude that parents lack standing unless they can prove that a secret transition has already occurred.

That approach allows governments to adopt policies that exclude parents from vital information about their children, make the policies difficult to detect, and then argue that parents cannot challenge them because they cannot prove the policies have already been applied to their child.

Constitutional rights should not depend on such a procedural trap.

The Liberty Justice Center will continue to defend parents’ rights to information about their children.

Parents bear the responsibility for caring for their children. With that responsibility comes the right to make consequential decisions about their children’s upbringing, health and welfare.

The government may not place itself between parents and their children while preventing parents from asking a court to protect their fundamental rights.

The parent-child relationship predates the state, and the Constitution protects it.