IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 547 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental 

rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 10, 2005 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POE, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mrs. 

MYRICK, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, 

Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. 

JINDAL, Mr. ISSA, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. CHOCOLA, Mr. BARRETT of 

South Carolina, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. KLINE, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, Mr. WAMP, Mr. 

FORTENBERRY, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, 

Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. FEENEY, 

Mr. PENCE, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. 

MCKEON, Ms. HART, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. FRANKS of Arizona) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

deplorably infringed on parental rights in Fields v. 

Palmdale School District. 

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

in Palmdale, California a letter requesting consent to give 
2 

•HRES 547 IH 

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 

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 
3 

•HRES 547 IH 

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)); 

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 
4 

•HRES 547 IH 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the fundamental right of parents to direct 

4 the education of their children is firmly grounded in 

5 the Nation’s Constitution and traditions; 

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

7 Palmdale School District undermines the funda8 mental right of parents to direct the upbringing of 

9 their children; and 

10 (3) the United States Court of Appeals for the 

11 Ninth Circuit should agree to rehear the case en 

12 banc in order to reverse this constitutionally infirm 

13 ruling. 

Æ