The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case about a Maryland school district鈥檚 policies to support transgender students and when parents may challenge them.
The court鈥檚 action in was not a decision on the merits, but the case is emblematic of a widespread national debate over gender identity policies in public schools and parental rights.
鈥�69传媒 across the country over the past few years have adopted policies similar to that involved here that require school personnel to hide from parents鈥攍ying if need be鈥攖hat the school is assisting their child to transition gender at school,鈥� said the in their case against the 160,000-student Montgomery County district outside the nation鈥檚 capital.
The parents contend that what they call a 鈥減arental preclusion policy鈥� calls for school personnel to support gender-transitioning students to change their names, pronouns, and how they 鈥渆xhibit鈥� their gender without officials consulting or even notifying parents. They argued that the policy violates their 14th Amendment due process right to direct the upbringing of their children.
The school district that its 鈥淕uidelines for Gender Identity,鈥� adopted in advance of the 2020-21 school year, call for collaboration with parents in developing a gender support plan for a transitioning student.
But when the student鈥檚 parents are deemed non-supportive, the guidelines 鈥渁cknowledge the reality that, 鈥榠n some cases, transgender and gender-nonconforming students may not openly express their gender identity at home because of safety concerns or lack of acceptance,鈥� and, in light of that reality, indicate that student support and safety is an overarching goal,鈥� the district said, quoting from the guidelines.
The parents鈥� lawsuit was dismissed in 2022 by a federal district court. Last year, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., that the parents lacked standing to sue over the guidelines because none of their children had gender-support plans or had any discussions with school officials about gender transitioning or gender identity issues.
Writing for the majority, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. said the guidelines are 鈥渟taggering from a policy standpoint鈥� and may be 鈥渁n overreach into areas that parents should handle.鈥�
But the parents 鈥渉ave not alleged facts that the Montgomery County public schools have any information about their children that is currently being withheld or that there is a substantial risk information will be withheld in the future,鈥� he said.
In dissent, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer said the majority鈥檚 view of parental standing was 鈥渦nfairly narrow鈥� in this case and subjected parents 鈥渢o a mandatory policy that pulls the discussion of gender issues from the family circle to the public schools without any avenue of redress by the parents.鈥�
Niemeyer also cast doubt on the legality of the district鈥檚 guidelines, saying they usurp 鈥渢he constitutionally protected role鈥� of parents.
School districts鈥� policies on transgender students facing legal challenges
The parents, backed by the National Legal Foundation of Chesapeake, Va., also had support from several conservative groups and Republican-led states in the Supreme Court. A friend-of-the-court brief filed by said, 鈥淧arents must have the right to ask for the courts鈥� help in securing the fundamental right to know what schools are doing with their kids.鈥�
The parents and the states both cite that more than 1,000 districts nationwide have policies for transgender and gender non-conforming students that 鈥渙penly state that district personnel can or should keep a student鈥檚 transgender status hidden from parents.鈥�
The Montgomery County school district told the court in its brief that the 4th Circuit was correct in ruling that the parent challengers lacked standing. It said there are several cases across the country alleging that school districts denied information about a child鈥檚 gender transition to that child鈥檚 parents.
If the parents and their supporters 鈥渁re correct that similar cases are percolating through the lower courts, then the [Supreme] Court should address these issues, if at all, in litigation that presents an actual case or controversy,鈥� the district said.
This is not the only LGBTQ+ controversy in the Montgomery County district. Last week, a separate 4th Circuit panel issued a decision that refused to block the district鈥檚 policy preventing parents from opting their children out of LGBTQ+ inclusive 鈥渟torybooks鈥� used in its elementary schools.
