Proposed Constitutional Amendment Sets 'Highest Order' Bar for Government to Intervene in Parental Decisions

This Joint Resolution proposes a significant addition to the U.S. Constitution: a new amendment guaranteeing parents a fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing, education, and care. Essentially, this bill seeks to elevate parental control to the highest legal standing, making it much harder for state or federal agencies to step in.

The New Constitutional Shield

The core of the amendment is establishing parental rights as a fundamental liberty. This isn’t just a nice idea; it means that governments—federal, state, or local—can’t mess with a parent’s decision about how to raise their kid unless they clear a massive legal hurdle. Specifically, the government must prove two things: first, that its reason for interfering is of the “highest order” of governmental interest, and second, that there is no other way to achieve that interest. That’s a standard usually reserved for things like national security or preventing imminent death. For context, most laws only need to meet a much lower standard of being ‘reasonable’ or ‘substantially related’ to a government goal.

Education: The Ultimate Choice

For parents juggling school choices, this amendment is a game-changer. It explicitly protects the right to choose alternatives to public schooling, whether that’s private school, religious school, or homeschooling. If you’re homeschooling your child while working a flexible schedule, or if you’ve chosen a specific religious education for them, this amendment constitutionally locks in that choice. It also guarantees parents the right to make “reasonable choices” within the public school system itself. This could potentially lead to serious legal battles over curriculum, mandatory assignments, or even school policies that parents feel infringe on their rights.

Where Child Welfare Agencies Hit a Wall

This is where the rubber meets the road, and the potential impact is huge. By setting the bar for government intervention so incredibly high, the amendment could severely complicate the work of Child Protective Services (CPS) and similar agencies. Right now, if a state believes a child is being neglected or abused, it can move quickly to intervene. Under this proposed amendment, any intervention—even removing a child from an unsafe environment—could be challenged in court, forcing the state to demonstrate that its action meets that “highest order” standard. For a social worker trying to protect a child, the new constitutional requirement could mean significant delays and increased legal burdens, potentially slowing down critical interventions.

The Disability Provision

One clear protection in the bill states that these parental rights cannot be denied or limited because a child has a disability. This is important for parents of children requiring specialized care, ensuring that agencies cannot use a child’s disability status as a reason to override parental decisions regarding medical treatment, education, or care plans. It aims to prevent the denial of parental authority based on assumptions about a child's needs or capabilities.

The Big Picture: Legal Chaos or Necessary Protection?

This bill attempts to provide maximum autonomy to parents, which is a clear benefit to those who want constitutional certainty in their educational and upbringing choices. However, the mechanism it uses—the “highest order” standard—is so extreme that it risks creating significant challenges for public safety and child protection. While the intent may be to stop government overreach, the practical effect could be a massive reduction in the ability of states to enforce educational standards or intervene in cases of neglect, forcing every single dispute into a high-stakes constitutional lawsuit. This shift could make it much harder for state agencies to ensure every child receives basic care and education.