H. Res. 547

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

November 16, 2005.

Whereas the Palmdale School District sent parents of elementary school students at Mesquite Elementary School 

in Palmdale, California a letter requesting consent to give 

a psychological assessment questionnaire to their first, 

third, and fifth grade students; 

Whereas without the informed consent of their parents, the 

young students were instead administered a questionnaire 

that contained sexually explicit and developmentally inappropriate questions; 

Whereas seven parents subsequently filed a complaint against 

the Palmdale School District in a Federal district court; 

Whereas on November 2, 2005, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the 

United States District Court for the Central District of 

California in the case (Fields v. Palmdale School District) and held that parents ‘‘have no constitutional right 

. . . to prevent a public school from providing its students 

with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or 

otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is 

appropriate to do so’’; 

Whereas the Ninth Circuit stated, ‘‘once parents make the 

choice as to which school their children will attend, their 
2

•HRES 547 EH 

fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished’’; 

Whereas in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 401 (1923), 

the Supreme Court recognized that the liberty guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the Constitution encompasses ‘‘the power of parents to control the education of 

their [children]’’; 

Whereas the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 

268 U.S. 510, 534–35 (1925), highlighted the Meyer 

doctrine that parents and guardians have the liberty ‘‘to 

direct the upbringing and education of children under 

control’’ and emphasized that ‘‘[t]he child is not the mere 

creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct 

his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to 

recognize and prepare him for additional obligations’’; 

Whereas in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232–33 

(1972), the Supreme Court acknowledged that ‘‘[t]he history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong 

tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established 

beyond debate as an enduring American tradition. . . . 

The duty to prepare the child for ‘additional obligations’, 

referred to by the Court [in Pierce] must be read to include the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, 

and elements of good citizenship’’; 

Whereas a plurality of the Supreme Court has stated, ‘‘it 

cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of 

the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental 

right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, 

custody, and control of their children’’ (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (plurality opinion)); 
3

•HRES 547 EH 

Whereas the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Fields v. Palmdale 

School District presupposes that ‘‘parents make the 

choice as to which school their children will attend’’ 

when, in fact, many parents do not have such a choice; 

Whereas the decision in Fields establishes a dangerous precedent for limiting parental involvement in the public education of their children; and 

Whereas the rights of parents ought to be strengthened 

whenever possible as they are the cornerstone of American society: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) the fundamental right of parents to direct the 

education of their children is firmly grounded in the Nation’s Constitution and traditions; 

(2) the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Fields v. Palmdale 

School District undermines the fundamental right of 

parents to direct the upbringing of their children; and 

(3) the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit should agree to rehear the case en banc 

in order to reverse this constitutionally infirm ruling.

Attest:

Clerk.