Amicus Curiae Brief — January Littlejohn, et vir, Petitioners v. School Board of Leon County, Florida, et al.

Supreme Court briefOct 3, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 25-259

In the Supreme Court of the United States

__________

JANUARY LITTLEJOHN AND JEFFREY LITTLEJOHN,

Petitioners,

SCHOOL BOARD OF LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL.,

Respondents.

____________________

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________

BRIEF FOR DEFENDING EDUCATION

AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

__________

CHRISTOPHER E. MILLS

Counsel of Record

Spero Law LLC

557 East Bay Street

#22251

Charleston, SC 29413

(843) 606-0640

cmills@spero.law

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Authorities .....................................................ii

Interest of Amicus Curiae ........................................... 1

Summary of the Argument ......................................... 2

Reasons for Granting the Writ.................................... 3

I. Secretly transitioning children is a

widespread problem in public schools. ............... 3

II. The decision below leaves many parents

without meaningful recourse to vindicate

their constitutional rights. ................................ 11

A. Courts have denied standing to

challenge secret transition policies. ............ 11

B. Secret transition policies violate

parents’ rights. ............................................. 15

C. This Court’s intervention is necessary. ....... 22

Conclusion .................................................................. 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser,

478 U.S. 675 (1986) ................................................ 16

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah,

508 U.S. 520 (1993) ................................................ 20

Cruz-Erazo v. Rivera-Montanez,

212 F.3d 617 (CA1 2000) ....................................... 15

Doe v. Pine-Richland Sch. Dist.,

2024 WL 2058437 (W.D. Pa. May 7, 2024) ........... 12

Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of Alabama,

114 F.4th 1241 (CA11 2024) .............................. 9, 10

Foote v. Ludlow Sch. Comm.,

128 F.4th 336 (CA1 2025) ...................................... 18

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente

Uniao do Vegetal,

546 U.S. 418 (2006) ................................................ 20

Gruenke v. Seip,

225 F.3d 290 (CA3 2000) ................................. 16, 17

Guerrieri v. Tyson,

24 A.2d 468 (Pa. Super. 1942) ............................... 17

Hailey v. Brooks,

191 S.W. 781 (Tex. Civ. App. 1916) ....................... 17

Hardy v. James,

5 Ky. Op. 36, 1872 WL 10621 (1872) ..................... 17

iii

John & Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery Cnty.

Bd. of Educ.,

78 F.4th 622 (CA4 2023) .................................. 11, 12

Kaltenbach v. Hilliard City Sch.,

2025 WL 1147577 (CA6 Mar. 27, 2025) ........ 6, 7, 21

Kaltenbach v. Hilliard City Schs.,

730 F. Supp. 3d 699 (S.D. Ohio 2024) ................... 12

Lee v. Poudre Sch. Dist.,

2023 WL 8780860 (D. Colo. Dec. 19, 2023) ........... 21

Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L.,

594 U.S. 180 (2021) ................................................ 18

Mahmoud v. Taylor,

145 S. Ct. 2332 (2025) ...................................... 20, 24

Marbury v. Madison,

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) ................................. 23

Mead v. Rockford Pub. Sch. Dist.,

2025 WL 2682125

(W.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2025) ............................. 18, 21

Meyer v. Nebraska,

262 U.S. 390 (1923) ................................................ 19

Mirabelli v. Olson,

691 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (S.D. Cal. 2023) .................. 22

Morse v. Frederick,

551 U.S. 393 (2007) ................................................ 17

Nebraska Dist. of Evangelical Lutheran Synod of

Missouri, Ohio, & Other States v. McKelvie,

175 N.W. 531 (Neb. 1919) ...................................... 19

Parents Defending Educ. v. Linn-Mar Cmty.

Sch. Dist.,

629 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Iowa 2022) ........ 5, 13, 21

Parents Defending Educ. v. Linn-Mar Cmty.

Sch. Dist.,

83 F.4th 658 (CA8 2023) ........................................ 13

Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire

Area Sch. Dist.,

95 F.4th 501 (CA7 2024) ........................................ 12

Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire

Area Sch. Dist.,

145 S. Ct. 14 (2024) .................................... 11, 12, 13

Parham v. J.R.,

442 U.S. 584 (1979) ............................................ 1, 25

Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters,

268 U.S. 510 (1925) ................................................ 15

Reno v. Flores,

507 U.S. 292 (1993) ................................................ 20

Sherbert v. Verner,

374 U.S. 398 (1963) ................................................ 20

State v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Fond du Lac,

23 N.W. 102 (Wis. 1885) ........................................ 17

State v. Ferguson,

144 N.W. 1039 (Neb. 1914) .................................... 17

T.F. v. Kettle Moraine Sch. Dist.,

2023 WL 6544917 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Oct. 3, 2023) ........ 3

Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon Sch. Dist.,

637 F. Supp. 3d 295 (W.D. Pa. 2022) .................... 21

United States v. Skrmetti,

145 S. Ct. 1816 (2025) .................................. 4, 10, 22

Vanvactor v. State,

15 N.E. 341 (Ind. 1888) .......................................... 17

Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton,

515 U.S. 646 (1995) ................................................ 16

Willey v. Sweetwater Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1

Bd. of Trs.,

680 F. Supp. 3d 1250 (D. Wyo. 2023) .................... 18

STATUTES

20 U.S.C. § 1232g ...................................................... 24

Cal. Educ. Code § 220.3 ............................................. 23

OTHER AUTHORITIES

1 Blackstone’s Commentaries (10th ed. 1787) ........... 1

1 Blackstone’s Commentaries (1769) ........................ 16

2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law

(12th ed. 1873) ......................................................... 1

ACLU, Open Letter to Schools About LGBTQ Student

Privacy (Aug. 26, 2020),

https://perma.cc/KM2H-2MT3 ............................... 23

Asaf Orr et al., Schools in Transition: A Guide for

Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools,

https://perma.cc/US5J-6AZW .................................. 5

Dana Goldstein & Laurel Rosenhall, Trump

Challenges California on Transgender Parental

Notification, N.Y. Times (Mar. 27, 2025),

http://bit.ly/3JEIVek .............................................. 23

Defending Education, List of School District

Transgender–Gender Nonconforming Student

Policies, https://defendinged.org/investigations/listof-school-district-transgender-gender-nonconform

ing-student-policies/ (last updated Apr. 21, 2025) .. 3

Defending Education, Poll: 71% of Voters Support

Legislation Requiring Schools to Inform Parents if

Their Child Wants to Change Their Gender Identity

(Mar. 21, 2023), http://bit.ly/41KAUeb ................... 4

Donna St. George, Gender Transitions at School Spur

Debates, Wash. Post (July 18, 2022),

https://perma.cc/BVZ5-T3PK ............................. 8, 24

Gender Dysphoria Statistics In The United States,

Bright Path Behavioral Health (Apr. 7, 2025),

https://perma.cc/7QKC-7XJN .................................. 4

Hilary Cass, Independent Review of Gender Identity

Services for Children and Young People (Apr.

2024), https://perma.cc/74EA-L76V .................. 9, 20

Jack Panyard, Her Child Used Transgender Name,

Pronouns at School. Mom Blasts Dover for Not

Telling Her, York Daily Record (Sept. 21, 2022),

http://perma.cc/BUZ7-FPBC .................................... 8

James Morandini et al., Is Social Gender Transition

Associated with Mental Health Status in Children

and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria?,

52 Archives of Sexual Behavior 1045 (2023) .......... 8

John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Ch. VI,

§ 71, https://perma.cc/N5SA-K7BZ........................ 16

vii

Kate Anderson et al., The Biden Administration’s

Proposed Changes to Title IX Threaten Parental

Rights, Federalist Soc’y (Jan. 5, 2023),

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/thebiden-administration-s-proposed-changes-to-titleix-threaten-parental-rights ................................... 24

Katie J. M. Baker, When Students Change Gender

Identity, and Parents Don’t Know, N.Y. Times (Jan.

22, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/

us/gender-identity-students-parents.html ...... 6, 7, 8

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,

Perez v. Broskie, No. 3:22-cv-83, ECF No. 30 (M.D.

Fla. Apr. 4, 2022) ..................................................... 6

Nat’l Education Ass’n, Legal Guidance on

Transgender Students’ Rights (June 2016),

https://perma.cc/26N8-23D5 .................................... 5

National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Facts,

https://perma.cc/RZ4B-MWU7 ................................ 3

Parental Rights Foundation, Survey: Voters

Overwhelmingly Support Parents’ Rights (May 31,

2022), https://perma.cc/G6J2-3M8S ........................ 4

Sophie Austin, California is 1st State to Ban School

Rules Requiring Parents Get Notified of Child’s

Pronoun Change, Associated Press (July 15, 2024),

https://perma.cc/35WN-ZZJS................................. 23

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, q.10, a.12,

https://perma.cc/7QPU-JEN5 ................................ 15

U.S. Dep’t of Education, Press Release: U.S.

Department of Education Directs Schools to

Comply with Parental Rights Laws (Mar. 28, 2025),

https://perma.cc/K87Q-L96U ................................. 24

viii

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Treatment for

Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence

and Best Practices (May 1, 2025),

https://perma.cc/A322-8Z8L............................. 10, 21

Wylie C. Hembree et al., Endocrine Treatment of

Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons:

An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline,

102(11) J. Clinic. Endocrinology & Metabolism

3869 (Nov. 1, 2017) ................................................ 10

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Defending Education is a national, nonprofit

membership association. Its members include parents

with school-aged children. It uses advocacy, disclosure, and litigation to combat the politicization and

indoctrination of K-12 and postsecondary education.*

The bond between parent and child is “the most

universal relation in nature.” 1 Blackstone’s

Commentaries 446 (10th ed. 1787). The common law

“recognized that natural bonds of affection lead

parents to act in the best interests of their children.”

Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979). In turn, as

parents are bound to care for their children and

guarantee their well-being, “the law has given them a

right to such authority.” 2 James Kent, Commentaries

on American Law 203 (12th ed. 1873). The

Constitution enshrines that right in the Fourteenth

Amendment, which protects the right of parents to

direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Defending Education exists to defend that right. It

has a significant interest in eliminating school actions

that take responsibility for critical decisions about a

child’s well-being away from parents and give it to

public school bureaucrats. To that end, Defending

Education has monitored the rise of policies that allow

schools to secretly transition students’ genders, and it

has litigated to end such policies.

* Amicus provided timely notice of its intention to file this brief.

No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and

no person other than amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel

made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Facing parents of public school children is an

explosion of policies that allow school personnel to

socially transition their young children—giving

children new names, pronouns, restrooms, and field

trip bunks—in secret. Defending Education has found

that nearly a quarter of the nation’s students are

subject to these policies. These “social transitions” are

not neutral interventions. While the overwhelming

majority of children with gender incongruity grow out

of it, most children who are socially transitioned do

not. Rather, they go on to increasingly invasive and

irreversible interventions—puberty blockers, sterilizing cross-sex hormones, and experimental genital

surgeries. Yet schools are refusing to even tell parents

that they are setting their children on this dangerous

pathway.

If the fundamental parental right to direct a child’s

upbringing protects anything, it protects against

state-sanctioned transition of a child without parents’

knowledge. But courts are leaving parents with no

way to vindicate this right. When parents challenge a

school’s policy—a “legislative” action—they are often

told that their concerns are too speculative so they

lack standing. And when parents challenge a school’s

application of its policy to their child, decisions like the

one below tell them they cannot assert their

fundamental

right

unless

they

clear

insurmountable hurdle: the “shocks the conscience”

test. The result is to deny parents meaningful judicial

recourse, rendering the constitutional principle of

parental rights a hollow promise for many families. To

correct this result, the Court should grant certiorari.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I. Secretly

transitioning

children

widespread problem in public schools.

A. The phenomenon of public schools secretly

socially transitioning young children has exploded in

recent years. School districts across the country are

adopting policies that allow school officials to socially

transition students without informing parents.

Defending Education keeps track of school districts

with policies stating that district personnel can or

should keep a student’s transgender status hidden

from parents. At last count, 1,215 school districts

nationwide were reported to have such policies—and

the actual figure is likely higher. These districts cover

over 12.3 million students, roughly a quarter of the

public school student population.1

Of course, those figures include only those districts

brazen enough to adopt a policy that “openly state[s]

that district personnel can or should keep a student’s

transgender status hidden from parents.”2 There are

likely many other districts with an unwritten practice

of facilitating student gender transitions. See, e.g.,

T.F. v. Kettle Moraine Sch. Dist., 2023 WL 6544917, at

*15, 18 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Oct. 3, 2023) (“Rather than d[o]

1 See Defending Education, List of School District Transgender–

Gender Nonconforming Student Policies, https://defendinged.org/

investigations/list-of-school-district-transgender-gendernonconforming-student-policies/ (last updated Apr. 21, 2025);

National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Facts,

https://perma.cc/RZ4B-MWU7.

2 List, supra note 1.

what the voters have elected them to do” and

“promulgate a policy” that allows “for public input,”

the school board hid behind “the actions of their

employee.”).

That more schools are secretly transitioning students is especially troubling given the rise in the

number of American children with gender dysphoria.3

When more students experience confusion about their

body, and more school officials hide that fact from

parents, that is a recipe for a mental health crisis.

It also undermines public confidence in the school

system. Secrecy does not inspire trust, so when schools

tell parents that they are not allowed to know critical

health information about their child, parents are

rightfully worried. After all, most Americans agree

that parents, not school bureaucrats, are in the best

position to make decisions about their children’s wellbeing.4 They also agree that schools should not

withhold information from parents about a child’s

gender identity.5

3 See Gender Dysphoria Statistics In The United States, Bright

Path Behavioral Health (Apr. 7, 2025), https://perma.cc/7QKC7XJN (noting a “nearly threefold increase in diagnoses of gender

dysphoria among children and adolescents in the U.S.” from

“2017 to 2021”); see also United States v. Skrmetti, 145 S. Ct.

1816, 1825 (2025) (“In recent years, the number of minors

requesting sex transition treatments has increased.”).

4 Parental Rights Foundation, Survey: Voters Overwhelmingly

Support Parents’ Rights (May 31, 2022), https://perma.cc/G6J23M8S.

5 Defending Education, Poll: 71% of Voters Support Legislation

Requiring Schools to Inform Parents if Their Child Wants to

The explosion in secret transition policies has

occurred in spite of this widespread opposition. It is

driven from the top down by activist groups

demanding that schools hide students’ gender information from their parents and—relying on spurious

readings of laws like FERPA and Title IX—threaten

liability for schools that disagree. The National

Education Association, for example, instructs school

personnel not to “disclose a student’s actual or

perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or

gender expression to” “parents” “unless required to do

so by law.”6 It partnered with a coalition of LGBT

activist groups to produce a guide that urges schools

“to have a plan in place to help avoid any mistakes or

slip-ups” that might clue in “unsupportive parents”

about what schools are doing to their children. 7 The

guide even encourages school officials to testify in

child custody proceedings against “biase[d]” parents.8

B. The sheer quantity of schools with secret

transition policies is alarming enough. But the

individual stories behind the statistics highlight the

serious and often irreparable harm that such policies

can inflict on families. Defending Education is well

aware of those harms because, in addition to tracking

the proliferation of secret transition policies across the

country, it has litigated the issue. See Parents

Change Their Gender Identity (Mar. 21, 2023), http://bit.ly/

41KAUeb.

6 Nat’l Education Ass’n, Legal Guidance on Transgender

Students’ Rights 6 (June 2016), https://perma.cc/26N8-23D5.

7 Asaf Orr et al., Schools in Transition: A Guide for Supporting

Transgender Students in K-12 Schools 16, https://perma.cc/US5J6AZW.

8 Id. at 34.

Defending Educ. v. Linn-Mar Cmty. Sch. Dist., 629 F.

Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Iowa 2022).

The stories shared by parents like the Littlejohns

are heartbreaking. In Florida, Wendell and Maria

Perez said that they found out that a school “employee

had been counseling their 12-year-old about ‘gender

confusion’ for months” “only after their child made two

suicide attempts.”9 Their daughter “had never

expressed any concerns or exhibited any signs of

distress about her gender identity at home.”10 Though

the elementary school counselor assured the girl that

the school would not notify her parents about its

transition efforts, the school apparently did not

maintain the same confidentiality with her peers, who

bullied her when they learned of her transition.11 Still

her parents were not informed.12 The Perezes were

later told that the school deliberately concealed their

daughter’s transition because of the family’s Catholic

faith.13

A family in one Ohio school district faced similarly

disturbing treatment. When their eighth-grade

daughter began suffering mental health difficulties,

her teachers concluded that she was “experiencing socalled ‘gender dysphoria.’” Kaltenbach v. Hilliard City

Sch., 2025 WL 1147577, at *2 (CA6 Mar. 27, 2025)

9 Katie J. M. Baker, When Students Change Gender Identity, and

Parents Don’t Know, N.Y. Times (Jan. 22, 2023),

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/us/gender-identitystudents-parents.html.

10 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 1–2, Perez v.

Broskie, No. 3:22-cv-83, ECF No. 30 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2022).

11 Id. at 3.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

(Thapar, J., concurring). Without consulting her

parents, they decided that they would treat her as a

male, “‘convinced [her] she was a boy in a girl’s body,’”

and had her “‘adopt a new name and identity.’” Ibid.

All the while, they “lied to [her] parents about what

was happening.” Id. at *1. Because they considered

her parents insufficiently “supportive” and therefore

“unsafe,” school officials “treated [her] as a girl

whenever she was around her parents, hoping to

hide . . . the new identity [they] had concocted for her.”

Id. at *2. Again, “the school’s decision had tragic

consequences: [the girl] attempted suicide at school.”

Ibid. The case was, as Judge Thapar noted, “beyond

troubling.” Id. at *1.

One California couple learned that their 15-yearold child, a biological girl, had been socially

transitioned at school when they “glimpsed a

homework assignment with an unfamiliar name

scrawled at the top.”14 School officials had concealed

the transition for six months, even though the parents,

once informed, “accepted their teenager’s new gender

identity.”15 Understandably, the parents were

unsettled by the school’s deception. Doctors had

previously diagnosed their child with autism, ADHD,

PTSD, and anxiety.16 The teen also struggled with

“loneliness” and had “repeatedly changed” names and

sexual orientations.17 But the parents weren’t able to

14 Baker, supra note 9.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

address any of these issues because they were kept in

the dark. Instead, the school had put their “teenager,

a minor, on a path the school wasn’t qualified to

oversee.”18 Their child eventually “asked for hormones

and [breast removal] surgery.”19

One mother in California “went two years without

knowing her sixth grader had transitioned at

school.”20 In some cases, schools are even sending

students for medical treatment without informing

parents. In Pennsylvania, one school’s secret

transition of a 12-year-old “culminated with the school

sending the child to the hospital for an evaluation with

inpatient therapy.”21 “The school still did not inform

the mother of the child’s gender identity in class.”22

The theme is clear. Schools are putting students in

danger by concealing critical mental health

information from the people who know them best and

care most about them: their parents.

C. Beyond the distrust and disruption that secret

transition policies breed, they may lead to lasting

negative consequences for young children. Social

transitions are no neutral intervention. The evidence

suggests that there is no mental health benefit

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Donna St. George, Gender Transitions at School Spur Debates,

Wash. Post (July 18, 2022), https://perma.cc/BVZ5-T3PK

(emphasis added).

21 Jack Panyard, Her Child Used Transgender Name, Pronouns

at School. Mom Blasts Dover for Not Telling Her, York Daily

Record (Sept. 21, 2022), http://perma.cc/BUZ7-FPBC.

22 Ibid. (emphasis added).

associated with social transitions.23 The long-term

costs, on the other hand, are significant. As the United

Kingdom’s Cass Review—a seminal review of evidence

about childhood gender transition—explained, “it is

important to view [social transition] as an active

intervention because it may have significant effects on

the child or young person in terms of their

psychological

functioning

and

longer-term

outcomes.”24 And “[t]he importance of what happens

in school cannot be under-estimated.”25 Absent

interventions like social transitioning, the vast

majority of “children with gender dysphoria grow out

of it.” Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of Alabama, 114 F.4th

1241, 1268 (CA11 2024) (Lagoa, J., concurring). But

one “study found that 93% of those who socially

transitioned between three and 12 years old continued

to identify as transgender” five years later.26 Another

“study looking at transgender adults found that

lifetime suicide attempts and suicidal ideation in the

past year was higher among those who had socially

transitioned as adolescents compared to those who

had socially transitioned in adulthood.”27

E.g., James Morandini et al., Is Social Gender Transition

Associated with Mental Health Status in Children and

Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria?, 52 Archives of Sexual

Behavior 1045, 1045 (2023).

24 Hilary Cass, Independent Review of Gender Identity Services

for Children and Young People 158 (Apr. 2024), https://perma.cc/

74EA-L76V.

25 Ibid.

26 Id. at 162.

27 Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Social transition is the start of a conveyor belt that

sends a child through the medical transition pathway.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

recently explained that studies “suggest[] the majority

of children who socially transition before puberty

progress to medical interventions.”28 According to the

Endocrine Society—a proponent of medically

transitioning children—“[i]f children have completely

socially transitioned, they may have great difficulty in

returning to the original gender role.”29 The Society

even admitted that “there are currently no criteria to

identify” when gender dysphoria could be reduced by

early social transitions.30 Social transitions are thus

likely to usher children to dangerous, unproven, and

sterilizing sex hormones and surgeries. See EknesTucker, 114 F.4th at 1260–61, 1268–70 (Lagoa, J.,

concurring); see also Skrmetti, 145 S. Ct. at 1836–37.

Those “treatments” can have lasting harmful effects,

including impaired brain development, cardiovascular

risks, loss of fertility, and much more. Id. at 1841–43

(Thomas, J., concurring).

In sum, the questions underlying this case are

critically important for children and families across

the country, supporting this Court’s review.

28 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Treatment for Pediatric

Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices 71

(May 1, 2025), https://perma.cc/A322-8Z8L (“HHS Report”).

29 Wylie C. Hembree et al., Endocrine Treatment of GenderDysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons, 102(11) J. Clinic.

Endocrinology & Metabolism 3869, 3879 (Nov. 1, 2017).

30 Ibid.

II. The decision below leaves many parents

without meaningful recourse to vindicate

their constitutional rights.

Judicial recourse was already elusive for parents

asserting their constitutional right to direct their

children’s upbringing against secret public school

transitions. Courts confronting similar cases have

often denied standing to parents of children who have

not yet been covertly transitioned by their schools. In

effect, these courts have told parents to wait until

their child is secretly socially transitioned—no matter

if, by design, they will not know that. Yet parents are

now told by the decision below that even once that

happens, and they bring an appropriate lawsuit, they

cannot prevail because challenges to “executive

action” are initially governed by an insurmountable

“shocks the conscience” standard. This would make it

impossible for parents to vindicate their constitutional

rights—depriving them of the fundamental ability to

guide their children’s upbringing and education.

Courts should not use threshold legal doctrines “as a

way

of avoiding . . . contentious constitutional

questions” like this one. Parents Protecting Our

Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area Sch. Dist., 145 S. Ct.

14, 14–15 (2024) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of

certiorari).

A. Courts have denied standing to challenge

secret transition policies.

Courts routinely—and wrongly—deny standing to

parents who challenge similar secret transition

policies before they are imposed on their child. Typical

is one Fourth Circuit decision, which held that such

parents lack a current injury because their children

did not yet have “any discussions with school officials

about gender-identity or gender-transition issues”—so

“no information is being withheld.” John & Jane

Parents 1 v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 78 F.4th

622, 629 (CA4 2023). The Fourth Circuit also said that

no impending injury existed because the parents had

“not alleged that they suspect their children might be

considering gender transition.” Id. at 630. The obvious

response is that the point of these policies is to deny

parents that knowledge, but the Fourth Circuit swept

that aside. The court held it irrelevant whether “the

government hides information” that would let the

parents “determine whether they had been injured”

enough for the court’s liking. Id. at 631.

Other courts have come to the same conclusion.

One held that parents’ “worry and concern do not

suffice to show that any parent has experienced actual

injury.” Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau

Claire Area Sch. Dist., 95 F.4th 501, 506 (CA7 2024).

Another went further, holding that “[e]ven if the child”

“identifies as transgender,” “standing still does not

exist unless [the] child has some interaction with the

District pursuant to its gender policy.” Doe v. PineRichland Sch. Dist., 2024 WL 2058437, at *9 (W.D. Pa.

May 7, 2024). Similar decisions abound. See

Kaltenbach v. Hilliard City Schs., 730 F. Supp. 3d 699,

703 (S.D. Ohio 2024) (holding that parents lack

standing because they “offer no allegations that their

children have told or will tell the school that they are

(or may be) LGBTQ+”).

To be sure, denying standing to parents whose

children are subject to secret transition policies is

wrong. These policies “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.” Parents Protecting Our

Children, 145 S. Ct. at 14 (Alito, J., dissenting from

denial of certiorari). Under these policies, “parents’

fear that the school district might make decisions for

their children without their knowledge and consent is

not ‘speculative’”—parents “are merely taking the

school district at its word.” Ibid. But the reality is that

many courts deny standing in these circumstances,

perhaps “as a way of avoiding some particularly

contentious constitutional questions.” Id. at 14–15.

Defending Education experienced the use of

standing to insulate these harmful policies from

judicial review. On behalf of parent members, it sued

the Linn-Mar Community School District in Iowa for

a “parental exclusion policy” depriving parents of

students in seventh grade and up the right to know

their child’s gender identity at school. The district

court refused to find standing for this claim, reasoning

that “no one has been denied information related to

their child’s gender identity or Gender Support

Plan”—yet. Parents Defending Educ. v. Linn-Mar

Cmty. Sch. Dist., 629 F. Supp. 3d 891, 908 (N.D. Iowa

2022). The court also noted that one parent “has freely

withdrawn their child from the school district,” and

held that “the harm of being ‘forced’ out of the school

district is self-inflicted.” Id. On appeal, the Eighth

Circuit declined to reach the issue, holding that it was

moot. Parents Defending Educ. v. Linn-Mar Cmty.

Sch. Dist., 83 F.4th 658, 665–66 (CA8 2023).

Here, however, the Littlejohns navigated Article

III’s waters, which can be uniquely treacherous for

disfavored or controversial rights. The Defendants

were caught “hiding from the Littlejohns the fact that

their 13-year-old daughter had expressed a desire to

identify as a boy at school.” Pet. 103a (Newsom, J.,

concurring). More than that, the Defendants secretly

encouraged the child “to choose a preferred name,

preferred pronouns, preferred restroom, and preferred

room sharing arrangements on school fieldtrips.” Pet.

177a. The Defendants’ actions led to emotional

distress, exacerbation of the child’s “psychological and

educational difficulties,” “ongoing emotional and

psychological damage to the[] family dynamic,” and

costs for providing the child an alternative,

appropriate education. D. Ct. Dkt. 38 ¶ 163.

Yet even though the Littlejohns overcame

jurisdictional hurdles—because the school had

successfully started secretly transitioning their

child—the Eleventh Circuit greeted their case with an

even more impossible burden. According to the court,

if the Littlejohns had challenged “legislative action”

that “implicates a fundamental right,” like the

parental right to direct their children’s upbringing,

strict scrutiny would have applied. Pet. 12a. But

because the Defendants had applied their policies to

the Littlejohns’ child, the court held that the challenge

was to executive action. Pet. 18a. And according to the

court, “even if a plaintiff alleges that executive action

violated a fundamental right, the plaintiff must first

show that the action shocked the contemporary

conscience.” Pet. 14a (internal quotation marks

omitted).

This logic puts parents in a lose-lose situation.

Challenge “legislative action” like “a school board rule

of general applicability” (Pet. 18a), and be denied

standing because no direct action has been taken. Or

wait to challenge a direct action against your child—

putting child and family in direct danger—and still be

denied the ability to show a constitutional violation or

obtain redress. As two judges below explained, “pretty

much nothing shocks the conscience” under the

“shocks the conscience” test, so schools “will almost

certainly win.” Pet. 118a (Newsom, J., concurring)

(emphasis omitted). In short, “enforcement in the

Eleventh Circuit of the fundamental liberty interests

the Littlejohns seek to vindicate” will have “come to an

end.” Pet. 124a (Tjoflat, J., dissenting).31

B. Secret transition policies violate parents’

rights.

The Eleventh Circuit “assume[d] without deciding

that the Littlejohns invoke ‘fundamental’ rights.” Pet.

9a. That assumption was correct, making the court’s

negation of those rights even more troubling. Secret

social transitions are a cognizable burden on a deeplyrooted constitutional right.

1. Secret transitions implicate parents’ deeplyrooted right to direct their child’s upbringing. A

century ago, the Supreme Court recognized that “[t]he

child is not the mere creature of the State; those who

31 Some courts have held that interference with protected familial

relationships can meet this standard. E.g., Cruz-Erazo v. RiveraMontanez, 212 F.3d 617, 623 (CA1 2000).

nurture him and direct his destiny have the right,

coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare

him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Soc’y of

Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925). The Constitution

confers a fundamental right “to direct the upbringing

and education of children.” Id. at 534.32

That right extends to knowledge about a child’s

development at school. Mandatory public schools are

a recent development. This Court has characterized

“school authorities [as] acting in loco parentis,” Bethel

Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 684 (1986),

drawing on Blackstone’s description:

A parent “may . . . delegate part of his parental

authority, during his life, to the tutor or

schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco

parentis, and has such a portion of the power of

the parent committed to his charge, viz. that of

restraint and correction, as may be necessary to

answer the purposes for which he is employed.”

Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 655

(1995) (emphases added) (quoting 1 Blackstone’s

Commentaries 441 (1769)).

In loco parentis does not mean “displace parents.”

Gruenke v. Seip, 225 F.3d 290, 307 (CA3 2000). “It is

not educators, but parents who have primary rights in

32 Long history supports this right. See, e.g., Thomas Aquinas,

Summa Theologica II-II, q.10, a.12, https://perma.cc/7QPU-JEN5

(“[I]t would be contrary to natural justice” if anything were “done

to [a child] against its parents’ wish.”); John Locke, Second

Treatise of Government, Ch. VI, § 71, https://perma.cc/N5SAK7BZ (“[P]arents in societies . . . retain a power over their

children.”).

the upbringing of children.” Ibid. Rather, in loco

parentis rests on a theory of delegation: parents

delegate parental authority to the school while their

children are not in their custody—but only partial

delegation based on educational purpose. On this

doctrine, teachers have incidental authority to teach

and ensure order to the extent necessary to educate

the child. But the parent, not the teacher, retains

overall authority over the child’s upbringing and

education. “It is a dangerous fiction to pretend that

parents simply delegate [all] their authority . . . to

public school authorities.” Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S.

393, 424 (2007) (Alito, J., concurring). “School officials

have only a secondary responsibility and must respect

[parents’] rights.” Gruenke, 225 F.3d at 307.

The common law never envisioned that schools

could override parental authority. When schools took

actions that exceeded the bounds of parents’ partial

delegation, courts held the schools liable. See, e.g.,

Hailey v. Brooks, 191 S.W. 781, 783 (Tex. Civ. App.

1916) (delegation is “limited” and school has only

“reasonably necessary” powers); Vanvactor v. State, 15

N.E. 341, 342 (Ind. 1888) (teacher’s delegation is

“restricted to the limits of his jurisdiction and

responsibility as a teacher”); Guerrieri v. Tyson, 24

A.2d 468, 469 (Pa. Super. 1942) (school could not

dictate how to treat student’s injury); State v. Bd. of

Educ. of City of Fond du Lac, 23 N.W. 102, 104 (Wis.

1885) (school could not punish student for failing to

collect firewood); Hardy v. James, 5 Ky. Op. 36, 1872

WL 10621, at *1 (1872) (school could not punish child

for “trivial” playground disagreement); State v.

Ferguson, 144 N.W. 1039, 1044 (Neb. 1914) (school

could not force student to take a cooking class).

“If in loco parentis is transplanted from

Blackstone’s England to the 21st century United

States, what it amounts to is simply a doctrine of

inferred parental consent to a public school’s exercise

of a degree of authority that is commensurate with the

task that the parents ask the school to perform.”

Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L., 594 U.S. 180, 200

(2021) (Alito, J., concurring). That task is education of

the student—not overriding parental choices about

their child’s upbringing. There is no reason to think

that parents have delegated authority to schools to

transition their own child’s gender—and withhold the

knowledge that is happening from the parents whose

power the schools are purporting to exercise.

2. Parents “have a right to direct their minor child’s

education which cannot be accomplished unless they

are accurately informed.” Willey v. Sweetwater Cnty.

Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Trs., 680 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1277

(D. Wyo. 2023); see Mead v. Rockford Pub. Sch. Dist.,

2025 WL 2682125, at *7 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2025)

(collecting cases). Even courts rejecting similar claims

have recognized the obvious reality that “knowing that

the [child] had requested the use of an alternative

name and pronouns in school might inform how the

[p]arents respond to and direct their child’s gender

expressions outside of school.” Foote v. Ludlow Sch.

Comm., 128 F.4th 336, 355 (CA1 2025).

The Defendants can hardly contend otherwise.

After all, their own explanation for their policy centers

on disrupting the parents’ relationship with their

child. They claim that “[o]uting a student, especially

to parents, can be very dangerous to the student’s

health and well-being” because some “parents are

unaccepting of LGBTQ+ people out.” Pet. 235a. They

even claim that “[o]uting students to their parents can

literally make them homeless.” Ibid. So the whole

point of the policy as it was applied here is to affect the

parents’ relationship with their child. By actively

withholding critical information about the child, the

Defendants have burdened the Littlejohns’ fundamental parental rights.

Forcing parents to try to work around or counteract

schools’ secret transitioning is a constitutional injury.

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), this Court

invalidated a state statute that restricted the teaching

of a foreign language to children in school. It made no

difference that the law was not an absolute constraint:

parents remained free to “teach[] [a] [foreign]

language on Saturday or Sunday,” or outside school

hours. Nebraska Dist. of Evangelical Lutheran Synod

of Missouri, Ohio, & Other States v. McKelvie, 175

N.W. 531, 535 (Neb. 1919). But the Court recognized

“the power of parents to control the education of their

own.” Meyer, 262 U.S. at 401.

Likewise here, whether parents can try to discover

secret transitioning via other means or somehow

counteract schools’ efforts (without knowing about

them) is irrelevant. What matters is that the

government is placing a burden on their parental right

to direct their child’s upbringing and education.

Withholding information from parents about their

child’s core identity constrains parents’ understanding

and decisions about upbringing—again, that is the

point of these policies. See Pet. 235a. What’s more,

giving the imprimatur of official approval to a child’s

chosen identity puts great pressure on the child to

continue with that identity—and to go along with the

school’s approved measures to keep the identity secret

from parents. “The State exerts great authority and

coercive power through public schools because of the

students’ emulation of teachers as role models and the

children’s susceptibility to peer pressure.” Mahmoud

v. Taylor, 145 S. Ct. 2332, 2355 (2025) (cleaned up).

These burdens on the parental right to direct their

child’s upbringing triggers strict scrutiny. See Reno v.

Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993). “[T]o survive strict

scrutiny,” the school’s actions “must advance interests

of the highest order and must be narrowly tailored in

pursuit of those interests.” Church of Lukumi Babalu

Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993) (internal

quotation marks omitted). “[O]nly the gravest abuses,

endangering paramount interests, give occasion for

permissible limitation.” Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S.

398, 406 (1963) (cleaned up). And the school must

demonstrate specifically that “application of the

[legal] burden to [these parents] represents the least

restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest.”

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do

Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 423 (2006) (cleaned up).

Schools engaging in secret transitioning will not be

able to pass strict scrutiny. That is true for many

reasons, and we focus on one here. Secret

transitioning policies could not advance any interest

in protecting transgender children because they harm

those children. As the Cass Review explained,

“[o]utcomes for children and adolescents are best if

they are in a supportive relationship with their

family.”33 “For this reason parents should be actively

involved in decision making unless there are strong

grounds to believe that this may put the child or young

person at risk.”34 A school that secretly transitions a

child based only on the child’s “concern about how

their parents might react” “set[s] up an adversarial

position between parent and child” and deprives the

child of the chance for holistic support both in and out

of the home.35 On top of that, there’s the high

likelihood that a parent will eventually find out—and

the inevitable negative consequences for the parentchild relationship, the parent-school relationship, and

the child’s schooling. See, e.g., Mead, 2025 WL

2682125, at *7; Kaltenbach, 2025 WL 1147577, at *2;

Lee v. Poudre Sch. Dist., 2023 WL 8780860, at *7 (D.

Colo. Dec. 19, 2023); Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon Sch. Dist.,

637 F. Supp. 3d 295, 306 (W.D. Pa. 2022); Parents

Defending Educ., 629 F. Supp. 3d at 908 (all cases like

this one, in which the parents eventually find out).

Further, as discussed, secret social transitions are

likely to lead to dangerous medical interventions.

Given that most children would desist from gender

incongruence absent social transition, there is a real

danger of locking children into an identity that they

would have otherwise considered and then moved

away from. The result is that the State will have

imposed its own vision of how a child should develop

in place of the child’s—and the parent’s—own.

33 Cass, supra note 24, at 164.

34 Id.

35 Id. at 160.

According to the United States, “Every public

health authority that has conducted a systematic

review of the evidence has concluded that the

benefit/risk profile of [pediatric medical transition] is

either unknown or unfavorable.”36 That is why

“number of European countries have raised significant

concerns regarding the potential harms associated

with using puberty blockers and hormones to treat

transgender minors.” Skrmetti, 145 S. Ct. at 1825.

Some indeterminate number of children will thus be

permanently harmed by early social transitions, as

they will suffer “irreversible hormonal and/or surgical

interventions [and] ultimately [will] not continue to

identify as transgender.”37

As one court explained, a school “policy of

confidentiality and non-disclosure to parents” “is not

conducive to the health of their gender incongruent

students.” Mirabelli v. Olson, 691 F. Supp. 3d 1197,

1209 (S.D. Cal. 2023). The school’s policy here does not

promote any compelling interest in protecting

children—rather, that policy harms children. Because

the

Defendants

burdened

the

Littlejohns’

fundamental constitutional rights without an

adequate justification, the erroneous holding below

insulating the Defendants from liability is all the more

troubling.

C. This Court’s intervention is necessary.

Certiorari is necessary to ensure that parents can

meaningfully vindicate their rights to direct their

children’s upbringing—and protect them from

36 HHS Report, supra note 28, at 77; see generally id. Chapter 5.

37 Id. at 72–73.

transitioning zealots in many public schools. Though

this case may not fix the standing errors that have

plagued some cases, review could at least ensure that

parents who have suffered an actual secret

transitioning of their child can find some possibility of

meaningful recourse through the judicial process for

the denial of their fundamental rights outlined above.

As Judge Newsom explained, it “is totally bizarre” to

consign these parents to a near-certain loss when any

other challenge to governmental infringement of a

fundamental right would be a near-certain win under

the strict scrutiny that applies to such infringements:

“That makes no sense.” Pet. 118a (concurring opinion).

Though it may be overstatement to say “that every

right” “must have a remedy,” Marbury v. Madison, 5

U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 147 (1803), there is no reason in

law or logic for the Littlejohns to have no remedy.

Certiorari is needed to avoid that senseless result.

Legislative and administrative solutions to the

secret transition problem are inadequate and

uncertain. At least one State, California, has passed a

law that apparently “bar[s] school districts from

requiring staff to notify parents of their child’s gender

identification change.”38 See Cal. Educ. Code § 220.3.

But the United States says that rule violates federal

Sophie Austin, California is 1st State to Ban School Rules

Requiring Parents Get Notified of Child’s Pronoun Change,

Associated Press (July 15, 2024), https://perma.cc/35WN-ZZJS.

law.39 On the opposite side of the coin, several States

have adopted laws that do require schools to notify

parents.40 But those laws are subject to challenge, too.

The ACLU has a threatening “open letter” to schools

claiming that it is somehow unconstitutional “to

disclose a student’s sexual orientation or gender

identity” “to a student’s parents.”41 The Biden

Administration took a similar position, suggesting

that secret transitioning policies are required under

Title IX and FERPA.42 School districts commonly

make similar claims about FERPA, even though rights

to educational records under FERPA are the parents’

until the student turns 18. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(d).

Though the Department of Education is now

investigating schools with secret transitioning policies

for violating FERPA,43 parents need to be able to

defend their fundamental right to direct their

children’s upbringing. “In this country,” “the doctrine

of judicial review protect[s] individuals who cannot

39 See Dana Goldstein & Laurel Rosenhall,

Trump Challenges

California on Transgender Parental Notification, N.Y. Times

(Mar. 27, 2025), http://bit.ly/3JEIVek.

40 See ibid.

41 ACLU, Open Letter to Schools About LGBTQ Student Privacy

(Aug. 26, 2020), https://perma.cc/KM2H-2MT3.

42 See Kate Anderson et al., The Biden Administration’s Proposed

Changes to Title IX Threaten Parental Rights, Federalist Soc’y

(Jan. 5, 2023), https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/thebiden-administration-s-proposed-changes-to-title-ix-threatenparental-rights.

43 U.S. Dep’t of Education, U.S. Department of Education Directs

Schools to Comply with Parental Rights Laws (Mar. 28, 2025),

https://perma.cc/K87Q-L96U.

obtain legislative change.” Mahmoud, 145 S. Ct. at

2360. When schools violate parents’ right to direct

their children’s upbringing, those parents have “every

right to file suit to protect that right.” Ibid.

Policies that let school officials transition children

in secret undermine parents’ ability to provide for

their children’s wellbeing and harm children. In a

world in which schools “routinely send notes home to

parents about lesser matters,” such as “playground

tussles, missing homework, and social events,”44 there

is no justification for withholding information about

the child’s preferred name and identity from parents.

That withholding burdens parents’ fundamental

rights. When school officials encourage young,

impressionable children to question and ultimately

“transition” their gender—and then hide that fact

from their parents—they threaten the very harm that

the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of parental

rights is meant to avoid: “Pitting the parents and

child” against each other “as adversaries.” Parham,

442 U.S. at 610. This Court’s review is urgently

needed.

CONCLUSION

The Court should grant the petition.

44 St. George, supra note 20.

Respectfully submitted,