The Supreme Court’s decisions in both cases could provide important guidance to lower courts and public officials nationwide on the constitutional limits of government authority over families and religious practice.

Governments should not interfere with parents’ relationships with their children unless the parents are unfit. The Washington policy being challenged in this case turns that principle upside down. It assumes that certain parents are unfit without requiring any evidence that the charge is justified.

These types of cases arise when government officials do not understand, or perhaps ignore, constitutional provisions protecting the free exercise of religion.

Parents generally know best what their child needs to succeed academically, and policymakers at the state and local levels are more likely to create policy that reflects that.

Conservatism is at a crossroads. Does it stick with Trump-style populism, or embrace the principles of limited, effective government that led to some of the movement’s biggest victories?