H. Res. 547
In the House of Representatives, U.S., 
November 16, 2005.
Whereas the Palmdale School District sent parents of ele-
mentary 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 inap-
propriate 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 Dis-
trict) 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
•HRES 547 EH 
fundamental right to control the education of their chil-
dren is, at the least, substantially diminished’’; 
Whereas in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 401 (1923), 
the Supreme Court recognized that the liberty guaran-
teed by the 14th amendment to the Constitution encom-
passes ‘‘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 his-
tory and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong 
tradition of parental concern for the nurture and up-
bringing of their children. This primary role of the par-
ents 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 in-
clude 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. Gran-
ville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (plurality opinion));
•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 prece-
dent for limiting parental involvement in the public edu-
cation of their children; and 
Whereas the rights of parents ought to be strengthened 
whenever possible as they are the cornerstone of Amer-
ican society: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Represent-
atives that—
(1) the fundamental right of parents to direct the 
education of their children is firmly grounded in the Na-
tion’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.