Thank you for your intercessory prayers over the past few months for God’s righteousness to shine through on these cases. What a testament to the power of an intercessor’s prayer.

This content is supported by your donations.
Give today.

View Comments (7)

Friday, June 28th, was a banner day at the Supreme Court for the president, for parents, for children, and for every American.

In a series of 6-3 Supreme Court decisions, the conservative justices ruled on a number of First Amendment issues, upholding individual and religious freedom. Intercessors have been deep in prayer for months over these specific cases and for the justices to rule according to God’s wisdom and will.

First came the 6-3 decision in U.S. v Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s state ban on transgender treatments on children. Every state ban – all 26 state bans – will now be upheld. Perhaps with this Supreme Court decision, Congress will move to pass a nationwide ban. You can read more about the impact of this decision in a prior IFA article, Answered Prayer! Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Trans Ban.

However, the Supreme Court made many more righteous decisions.

Court Stands Up for Religious Freedom and Parental Rights

In a landmark decision of parental rights and controlling their children’s education, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in Mahmood v. Taylor that parents did have the right to opt their children out of school lessons promoting the LGBTQ+ agenda.

The Court agreed with the petitioners, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents, to opt their children out of classes using LGBTQ+ literature. The local school district had refused the parents an opt-out option.

For more information on the background of this groundbreaking case on parental rights and religious freedom, please see the IFA article, Parental Rights on the Chopping Block at Supreme Court.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion affirming the free exercise clause of the First Amendment… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Justice Alito wrote, “What the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public-school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement that ‘burdens their well-established right to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children”

Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the majority ruling “threatens the very essence of a public education” because children go to public school “not to be taught a particular faith, but to be taught ideas that reflect our entire society.”

In his written opinion, Justice Alito included pictures of the front cover of the LGBTQ books in question. Alito wrote, the school board “requires teachers to instruct young children using storybooks that explicitly contradict their parents’ religious views, and it encourages the teachers to correct the children and accuse them of being ‘hurtful’ when they express a degree of religious confusion.”

In other words, what the school appeared to be doing was to define “love” as today’s culture does and actively instruct their definition of ‘love is love’ as the only acceptable truth.

Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, went even further, writing, “the inclusion of the storybooks and the exclusion of traditional religious views … constitute an impermissible attempt to ‘standardize’ the views of students.”

The Mahmood v. Taylor decision reinforces a long-held American principle that parents are responsible to raise their children with the moral and spiritual guidance they deem appropriate even in public schools.

“The interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children … is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” U.S. Supreme Court June 5, 2000

The decision in Mahmood v. Taylor will have a far-reaching effect on parents, their children, and schools all across our country—but especially for parents living in blue states who are forced to deal with liberal school boards, administrators, and teachers.

With the ruling in this case, will the court grant a hearing in the Foote v. Ludlow case? This case asks the Supreme Court to overturn an appellate decision ruling that schools do not have to inform parents that their children are secretly socially transitioning at school. For more information on this case, see the IFA article and prayer points in Parental Rights Trans Case May Head to Supreme Court.

Court Allows Age Verification for Pornography Sites

In 2023, Texas passed a law requiring websites to verify the ages of their users when one-third of their site contains “sexual material harmful to minors.” Senior U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law, ruling it violated an adult’s right to protected speech. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Ezra’s ruling.

The adult industry trade group then appealed to the Supreme Court. Their position is that adults should not have to verify their age just because the content might harm children. Thankfully, the Court ruled against the porn industry.

Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, saying, “The Texas law is an exercise of the state’s traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. Adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification.”

“Moreover, he added, the law “simply requires established verification methods already in use by pornographic sites and other industries.” In other words, when buying a pornographic magazine at a drugstore, one has to show proof of age. Accessing a pornographic website is no different.

Justice Kagan in her dissent stated that the Texas law covers constitutionally protected speech for adults, impedes adults’ ability to view said speech, and imposes a burden to get to that speech. In other words, adults should be able to get to their porn regardless of its harm to children.

Court Ends Nationwide Injunctions

In a 6-3 decision in Trump v. Casa, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and with the usual block of female liberal justices dissenting, the Supreme Court put an end to nationwide injunctions by lower court district judges. This is when a single judge can stop the executive branch from enforcing a law, policy, or executive order anywhere in the country.

Over 300 active cases have been filed in the first five months of President Trump’s second term to block his executive orders. In his second term, 40 nationwide injunctions have been issued against the president’s executive orders. That’s in addition to the 64 injunctions issued in his first term. That’s double the 54 total nationwide injunctions issued against Presidents Biden, Obama, Clinton, and Bush 2.

AG Pam Bondi revealed that nearly all injunctions have been issued out of five of the country’s 94 federal districts. These five districts in Maryland, D.C., Massachusetts, California, and Washington state are the most liberal and a clear indication of judge shopping by the left.

The Supreme Court finally said ‘Enough!’

Justice Barrett wrote that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” In other words, the decision a district court makes can only be applied to the plaintiffs in the case with standing to sue, not the entire country.

Justice Barrett continued, “No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”

Justice Ketanji-Brown is her dissent wrote, “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.”

In what many are considering a rebuke to Justice Brown’s hyperbole, Justice Barrett warned against an “imperial judiciary. She wrote, “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

The cases now return to the lower courts where the district judges will have to rule in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

What’s Next for Birthright Citizenship?

The Supreme Court, however, did not decide on the underlying issue of whether Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens is constitutional.

The 14^th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Its original intent was to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The Trump administration argues it was never meant to be abused by illegal aliens who are “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. For more information about birthright citizenship, go to the IFA article, 5 Things to Know About Birthright Citizenship.

Within hours after the ruling, two class action lawsuits were filed in Maryland and New Hampshire to block Trump’s executive order. However, obtaining nationwide relief through a class action suit can be a long and arduous process.

With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Trump administration can begin planning for its executive order on birthright citizenship to go into effect within 30 days in the 28 states that have not sued the Trump administration. More than 150,000 illegal newborns would be denied citizenship under President Trump’s executive order.

President Trump will also be looking to implement his other policies that have been blocked by the courts, such as 40 injunctions. He said at his press conference on Friday, “Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people.”

The issue of birthright citizenship will return to the Supreme Court in October, where it could decide whether President Trump’s position is constitutional and deny birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens.

Court Rules States Can Block Medicaid Funding for Abortions

On Thursday, the 27th, the Supreme Court ruled in another 6 to 3 decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood (PP) South Atlantic that South Carolina can block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics.

Governor Henry McMaster issued an Executive Order in 2018 to block public health dollars from going to abortion clinics. A private resident sued, arguing her rights were being violated under the Medicaid Act, which guaranteed patients a free choice of a qualified provider. She had chosen Planned Parenthood. The state argued that PP was not a qualified provider under the Medicaid Act and that the plaintiff did not have a “right” to sue to see their provider of choice.

Supposedly, PP offers other health services besides abortions, such as contraception, pregnancy testing, and breast cancer screenings. It’s the law that public funds can’t be spent on abortions. PP dubiously claims no public funds are spent on abortions.

The Supreme Court ruled that abortion clinics are unqualified to receive public funds, and states can ban public funds. With this decision, every pro-life state can end Medicaid funds to the country’s largest abortion provider. This decision will save countless lives.

Again, it’s thanks to the faithful prayers of intercessors praying into the will of God that we can rejoice today on the many righteous decisions from the Supreme Court. Thank you.

Let Us Pray

Lord, we thank you for these victories in the Supreme Court. We thank you for the six justices who ruled according to Your wisdom. We ask that you open the hearts and minds of the three liberal justices who care more for the approval of men than they seek your will. May every justice and judge seek Your approval, not man’s (Galatians 1:10). We ask for discernment for every justice to do what is righteous and true to protect our children, restore freedom to our lives, and uphold the Constitution. In the Mighty Name of Jesus, Amen. 

1. Pray for every Supreme Court Justice and judge to rule according to God’s will.

2. Pray for wisdom for the Supreme Court to uphold the rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution and guaranteed by our Creator.

3. Pray the Lord to awaken parents to what’s happening in public schools in regard to the LGBTQ+ agenda. Pray for courage for every parent to stand up to their local school board and demand that their constitutionally protected parental rights be respected.

4. Pray that the LGBTQ+ agenda will be driven out of all schools, public and private.

5. Pray for every state to pass a ban on the mutilation and sterilization of our children and an end to the transgender madness. Pray Congress will pass a national law outlawing these barbaric and unscientific treatments.

6. Pray for any future unrighteous schemes of liberal attorneys and the ACLU to fail in the light of the Supreme Court’s ending of nationwide injunctions.

7. Pray for the Supreme Court Justices to bring clarity to their future decision on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.

8. Pray that every pro-life state will end Medicaid funds to abortion providers. Pray that defunding PP will be enacted in the president’s big, beautiful bill, and all abortion clinics will be starved of private funding.

9. Pray for protection for all Supreme Court Justices, judges, and their families from physical and spiritual harm.

Are you thankful for these Supreme Court rulings? Share your praises and prayers in the comments below.

Belinda Brewster analyzes cultural, political, and world events from a biblical worldview. Belinda’s passion is to equip, support, and encourage parents and grandparents who are courageously battling against the spiritual and cultural forces impacting children and grandchildren. Photo Credit: CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images.