Supreme Court Denies Parents’ Challenge to School Policy of Secretly Encouraging Gender Transitions

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declined to hear a challenge by parents’ rights groups against a school district’s policy of secretly encouraging children to undergo so-called “gender transitions” without their parents’ knowledge.

According to the Daily Caller, the challenge was declined due to conservative justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and John Roberts denying the parental group’s petition. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh would have granted the petition.

“This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents’ ‘fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of’ their children…when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process,” wrote Justice Alito, in a dissent joined by Justice Thomas. “We are told that more than 1,000 districts have adopted such policies.”

The case stems from a lawsuit filed against Wisconsin’s Eau Claire Area School District over its policy of facilitating gender “transitions” and encouraging other forms of transgenderism without the parents’ knowledge. In March, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the parents did not have standing to challenge the policy, claiming that the parents were not directly impacted by it.

“School is now like Las Vegas: ‘What happens at school stays at school,’” said the parents in their petition to SCOTUS. They pointed out that such policies elsewhere in the country have already “generated over two dozen lawsuits,” with more likely to be filed in coming years.

“As any parent knows, parental authority includes the right (and the solemn responsibility) to say no to children’s often short-sighted desires when necessary to protect them from themselves,” the parents continued.

Justice Alito acknowledged that some courts are using standing, or apparent lack thereof, as an excuse in order to “avoid some particularly contentious constitutional questions.”

“The challenged policy and associated equity training specifically encourage school personnel to keep parents in the dark about the ‘identities’ of their children, especially if the school believes that the parents would not support what the school thinks is appropriate,” Justice Alito continued. “Thus, the parents’ fear that the school district might make decisions for their children without their knowledge and consent is not ‘speculative.’ …They are merely taking the school district at its word.”