time soon it will. Plaintiffs’ argument in favor of strict scrutiny, if any, must depend upon the classification of their right to direct the education of their children as a “fundamental right” within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court accepts that there is a basic “right of parents to control the education of their own.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (citing Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 401, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923)). They cannot be forced to take certain actions in that respect, Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (finding that parents cannot be compelled to enroll their children in public school), nor can they be forbidden from taking others, Meyer, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (<HOLDING>). But this does not mean that parents have a
holding that extracurricular activities like a high school dance are within the charitable purpose of conducting a school for learning even where the organization charged admission holding that a school board policy prohibiting employees from sending their children to private schools interfered with employees constitutional right to control the education of their children holding that legislation cannot prohibit school children from learning languages other than english holding trade school operated by union trust was seminary of learning holding that a school may not prohibit expressive activity unless there are facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities