Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Child Protective Services Practicing Eugenics, Supreme Court Challenge w/ Dwight Mitchell
Executive Summary
The claim that Child Protective Services (CPS) are “practicing eugenics” and that a Supreme Court challenge featuring Dwight Mitchell is underway is a mix of documented concerns and unsupported extensions. Reporting and legal documents show CPS and related systems have used IQ scores and disability evaluations in removal and custody decisions, and historical and contemporary reproductive coercion exist as forms of state control; however, there is no evidence that a current Supreme Court case named Dwight Mitchell alleging CPS eugenics is pending, and the cited Mitchell litigation was dismissed at the appellate level for lack of standing [1] [2] [3]. Below I extract the claim components, summarize relevant recent reporting and case law, and map where facts end and rhetorical framing begins.
1. What people mean when they say 'CPS is practicing eugenics' — historical roots and modern practices that give rise to the charge
Reporting and scholarship document a range of state actions that echo eugenic rationales: early‑to‑mid‑20th‑century sterilization laws, instances of coerced sterilization targeting marginalized groups, and modern policies that condition reproductive autonomy or parental fitness on disability or drug‑use status. Researchers and advocates specifically flag the use of IQ tests and disability labels by child‑welfare workers as a mechanism that disproportionately separates children from parents with cognitive or psychosocial disabilities, creating a continuity with older coercive practices [1] [3] [4]. These sources show legitimate grounds for concern about systemic bias and institutional power, but they document a spectrum from historical state sterilizations to contemporary administrative practices rather than an explicit, organized eugenics program run under that label.
2. The concrete, recent evidence about CPS removal decisions and IQ testing
Investigative reporting highlights cases—such as Amethyst Gibson—where low IQ scores were used as a dispositive factor in parental fitness evaluations, and advocates argue such metrics are inappropriate and harmful. The reporting documents specific removals and the perspectives of researchers who oppose IQ testing as determinative of parenting capacity, urging instead for support services and accommodations [1]. This body of evidence establishes that CPS decision‑making can and has relied on contested scientific and evaluative tools, producing outcomes that disproportionately affect disabled and marginalized parents. The factual record supports critique of these practices, while stopping short of proving an intent to enact eugenic policy.
3. The legal landscape — Mitchell litigation and what the courts actually decided
A federal appellate opinion in Mitchell v. Dakota County Social Services exists: Dwight Mitchell and his children sued, but the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs lacked standing to mount a facial constitutional challenge to Minnesota child‑welfare statutes, not because the court resolved broader substantive claims about eugenics or discriminatory practice [2]. Organization founders and litigants have publicized personal victories against child‑welfare actors in various administrative and state courts, but the available case law does not show a pending Supreme Court challenge involving Dwight Mitchell that changes national precedent on CPS practices. The existence of litigation does not equate to a Supreme Court docketing or an authoritative judicial finding that CPS operates as a eugenic institution.
4. Where reporting, scholarship, and advocacy diverge — framing and agendas to watch
Historical scholarship and critical legal analyses frame welfare rules, sterilization histories, and conditional reproductive programs as continuations of coercive state control over marginalized bodies [3] [4]. Advocacy groups draw a through‑line from those histories to current CPS practices; this framing is a rhetorical strategy meant to prompt reform and accountability [5]. Journalistic pieces that highlight individual tragedies aim to catalyze public attention. These orientations are not false, but they reflect different institutional aims: academic critique illuminates systemic patterns, litigation pursues legal remedies, and advocacy seeks policy change. Readers should note when a claim moves from documented practice to charged labels—“eugenics” carries moral and legal weight that requires explicit evidence of intent, policy, or statute.
5. Bottom line: what is established fact and what remains an interpretation open to policy remedy
It is an established fact that CPS and related welfare systems have used IQ scores and disability evaluations in ways that have led to child removals, and that U.S. history includes state‑sanctioned sterilizations and reproductive coercion affecting marginalized groups [1] [3] [4]. It is also a fact that Dwight Mitchell litigated against Dakota County Social Services and that his case was dismissed on standing grounds at the Eighth Circuit [2]. What is not established is that CPS is a coordinated modern eugenics program or that a Supreme Court case naming Dwight Mitchell alleging such a program is pending or decided. The documented practices justify urgent policy scrutiny, reform, and targeted litigation, but the term “eugenics” should be used with caution unless tied to explicit policy or legal findings demonstrating intentional, system‑level reproductive suppression.