Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a series of landmark decisions on issues of great importance to Christians and social conservatives, including abortion, parental rights, and online pornography. Combined with the Skrmetti decision released two weeks earlier — which upheld a Tennessee law protecting minors from gender transition procedures — it is no exaggeration to say that this was one of the most consequential two-week periods at the Supreme Court in recent history.

Here are three decisions from last week that stand out.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster (R) signed an executive order directing the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to remove a Planned Parenthood affiliate from the state Medicaid program due to the affiliate’s involvement with abortion. Planned Parenthood and several Medicaid recipients filed suit, arguing that Medicaid’s “free choice of provider” provision allows recipients to choose any qualified provider, including Planned Parenthood. Both the district court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor.

However, on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed those decisions. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Medicaid patients do not have a private right to sue a state if it excludes a provider from Medicaid. As he explained, “Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in “atypical” situations…where the provision in question “clear[ly]” and “unambiguous[ly]” confers an individual “right.” Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) is not such a statute.”

This ruling is significant because it allows South Carolina to lawfully exclude Planned Parenthood — which performed a record 402,230 abortions and received a record $792.2 million in taxpayer funding during the 2023 fiscal year — from its Medicaid program. The decision sets an important precedent and paves the way for other states to follow suit. If they do, Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses could face the loss of millions in taxpayer funding.

From a Christian point of view, Medina is encouraging because although the decision revolves around interpreting a Medicaid provision, the practical result is that less money will flow to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business. Christians who believe in the personhood of the unborn should not want tax dollars to fund an industry at odds with Genesis 1-2, which affirm that all human life is made in God’s image and worthy of dignity and respect. 

For more on the Bible’s teaching about abortion and the value of human life, see my booklet “Biblical Principles for Pro-Life Engagement.”

Mahmoud v. Taylor

In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland introduced a set of “LGBTQ+ inclusive” storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade English Language Arts classes. These books quickly drew criticism from parents of various religious backgrounds. Initially, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons incorporating these books. However, in March 2023, the school board removed the opt-out option for the remainder of the school year. This decision sparked widespread protests and prompted several religious families to file suit.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the parents had a strong case and granted a preliminary injunction, which allows families to opt out of the lessons incorporating the books while the case proceeds through the lower courts. Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

“Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected. … For example, the book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration. The young reader is guided to feel distressed at the prince’s failure to find a princess, and then to celebrate when the prince meets his male partner.”

Alito highlighted the conflict between the messages contained in the storybooks and the sincerely held religious beliefs of many parents:

“Many Americans ‘advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.’ … The storybooks, however, are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teachers’ instruction.”

Alito noted that one of the storybooks features a transgender-identifying child in a sex-ambiguous bathroom who proclaims, “A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.” The book’s accompanying discussion guide encourages children to explore gender identity, stating, “At any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.” The discussion guide also asks children, “What pronouns fit you best?”

Mahmoud v. Taylor will likely be remembered as one of the most significant cases regarding parental rights in recent history. The most well-known case in this area, Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), saw the court side with Amish parents who objected to compulsory high school education beyond eighth grade on religious grounds. That landmark decision affirmed parents’ right to direct their children’s religious upbringing and established the precedent that parental rights can outweigh the state’s interest in education.

At a time when progressive ideologies are increasingly shaping public education, Mahmoud offers an important safeguard for families concerned about ideological overreach in the classroom.

The court’s opinion aligns with the biblical principle that parents are the primary disciple makers in the home. Parents — not the state or a third party — are tasked with “diligently” teaching their children God’s commands (Deuteronomy 6:6-9) and therefore should have significant input when it comes to topics as important as identity, marriage, and sexuality.

The ruling also affirms the religious liberty of the parents who filed suit. Religious liberty is the freedom to believe what one wants in terms of doctrine and theology and to order one’s life according to those convictions. By refusing to offer parents an opt-out to the divisive, ideologically driven curriculum, the school district violated the religious liberty of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents. Thus, Christians can be grateful for the Mahmoud decision on these grounds as well.

For more on the Bible’s teaching about sexuality, see my booklet “Biblical Principles for Human Sexuality.”

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

In 2023, the Texas State Legislature passed House Bill 1181, which requires pornography websites to verify that users are at least 18 years old though government-issued IDs or similar methods. The Free Speech Coalition, an organization funded by the pornography industry, filed suit.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this law, affirming Texas’s legitimate interest in shielding minors from explicit content that undermines their innocence and distorts God’s good design for sexuality.

Justice Clarence Thomas highlighted the reality of today’s digital environment, noting that as of 2024, 95% of American teenagers had access to a smartphone, giving them virtually unlimited access to the internet. He also noted that 93% of teens use the internet multiple times a day, including for streaming video content.

Thomas underscored the scale and severity of the content available online. In 2019 alone, Pornhub — one of the websites implicated in the case — uploaded 1.36 million hours of new content, equivalent to more than 150 years of continuous viewing. The problem goes beyond the sheer volume of content; many of these videos depict violent and degrading acts, including rape and physical assault against women.

The court found that the law does not target speech based on its content. Instead, it regulates the commercial distribution of adult material to minors, which is a well-established and legitimate state interest. According to Thomas, the age verification requirement is narrowly tailored and serves the compelling goal of protecting children from harmful material online. As he explained:

“Because H. B. 1181 simply requires proof of age to access content that is obscene to minors, it does not directly regulate adults’ protected speech. Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors, and submitting to age verification burdens the exercise of that right. … But adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification. Any burden on adults is therefore incidental to regulating activity not protected by the First Amendment.”

The court affirmed what most parents already know: easy access to online pornography is harming children, and states have every right to intervene to protect them. Hopefully, legislators in other states will now follow Texas’s lead and enact similar age verification laws.

Christians have spiritual and theological reasons to be grateful for the court’s decision to protect children. The Bible teaches that sex is a gift from God, designed to be expressed within the covenant of marriage (Genesis 2:24). Pornography distorts this purpose by reducing sex to a mere commodity for personal gratification. Furthermore, Christians recognize that the pornography industry exploits people — mostly women — and that viewing pornography supports these systems of exploitation. Christians also understand that pornography harms its users by enslaving them to their desires and diminishing their God-given dignity.

Thus, although the court’s decision specifically addressed Texas’s age verification law, it also gives Christians an opportunity to reflect on the evils of the pornography and obscenity industries in general. As those called to pursue purity, defend the oppressed, and love our neighbors, Christians ought to deplore pornography and be grateful for every win — however small — against an industry that profits from exploitation, preys on human weakness, and undermines God’s design for sexuality and human dignity.

The recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have broad and long-lasting implications, especially if state lawmakers decide to act on the court’s guidance. The Medina ruling allows states to partially defund Planned Parenthood by excluding it from state Medicaid programs. The injunction in the Mahmoud case sends a clear message to progressive school districts that they cannot mandate LGBTQ+ curricula without accommodating families who have religious or moral objections. The Paxton ruling empowers states to implement age verification laws that protect minors from the harms of the pornography industry.

In short, the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings last week represent a significant shift that social conservatives and Christians can celebrate.