Amicus Curiae Brief — International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Bob Ferguson, Governor of Washington, et al.

Supreme Court briefFeb 13, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 25-840

In the Supreme Court of the United States

INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS FOR ETHICAL CARE, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

BOB FERGUSON, GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON, ET AL.,

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE

OUR DUTY–USA AND CHILD & PARENTAL

RIGHTS CAMPAIGN IN SUPPORT OF

PETITIONERS

C. ERIN FRIDAY

OUR DUTY - USA

P.O. Box 442

San Carlos, CA

94070

MARY E. MCALISTER

Counsel of Record

Vernadette R. Broyles

Kevin R. Smith

CHILD & PARENTAL RIGHTS

CAMPAIGN

5425 Peachtree Pkwy, Suite 110

Norcross, GA 30092

(770) 448-4525

mmcalister@childparentrights.org

Counsel for Amici Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................... iii

INTRODUCTION AND INTEREST OF AMICI

CURIAE ................................................................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 2

ARGUMENT ............................................................... 6

II.

Washington’s Statutory Scheme Infringes

Parents’ Fundamental Right to Direct the

Upbringing of Their Children. ....................... 6

The Law Is Unconstitutional on Its

Face. ........................................................ 6

The Law Is Unconstitutional As

Applied to Fit Parents Who Disagree

with State Ideology. ................................ 9

Washington's Laws Violate the Fourteenth

Amendment by Depriving Parents of Their

Fundamental Rights Without Procedural

Due Process................................................... 12

The Law Is Unconstitutional for

Failing to Provide Any Pre-Deprivation

Process. .................................................. 12

Application of the Mathews v. Eldridge

Factors Confirms the Procedural Due

Process Violation. .................................. 14

III. The Ninth Circuit’s Standing Analysis

Creates a Chilling Effect on Parental

Rights. ........................................................... 16

IV. Amicus Our Duty Members’ Stories Show

the Real Harms of Washington’s Statutory

Scheme. ......................................................... 18

Julie Barrett ................................................. 18

Diana L. ........................................................ 20

Kristina S. ..................................................... 21

Brooke G. ...................................................... 22

Katie S. ......................................................... 24

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 27

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398

(2013)...................................................................... 17

Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S.

532(1985)................................................................ 12

FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289

(2022)........................................................................5

International Partners for Ethical Care Inc v.

Ferguson, 146 F.4th 841 (9th Cir. 2025) ............... 16

International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v.

Ferguson, 161 F.4th 604 (9th Cir. 2025) ..... 6, 11, 17

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,

(1992)...................................................................... 16

Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ............. 17

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) ........... 5, 14

Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) ............ 3, 7, 8, 15

Prince v. Massachusetts 321 U.S. 158 (1944) .............7

Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997). ..... 6, 17

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) ................. 15

Smith v. Seibly, 431 P.2d 719 (Wash. 1967)............. 23

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) ... 4, 9, 13, 15, 16

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) ........ 2, 6-9, 12

United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495 (2025)........ 16

Statutes

SB5599, 68th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2023) ..............3

WASH. REV. CODE § 13.32A.082..............3-5, 11, 13, 14

WASH. REV. CODE § 48.43.005 ................................... 23

WASH. REV. CODE § 48.43.505 ................................... 23

WASH. REV. CODE §70.02.010 ......................................2

WASH. REV. CODE § 71.34.500 ................................... 23

WASH. REV. CODE § 71.34.530 ................................... 23

WASH.REV. CODE §74.09.675 ............................. 2, 4, 11

Other Authorities

Abigail Shrier, When the State Comes for Your

Kids: Social Workers, Youth Shelters, and

the Threat to Parental Rights, CITY

JOURNAL, June 8, 2021 .............................. 18, 25, 26

House Floor Debate on SB 5599 (Apr. 12,

2023) (statement of Rep. Jamila Taylor) ................9

Michael Torres, We Thought She Was a Great

Teacher, CITY JOURNAL, Winter 2024 ................... 26

Senate Floor Debate on SB 5599 (Mar. 1,

2023) (statement of Sen. Marko Liias) ...................9

Wash. State Dep’t of Child., Youth & Fams.,

Admin. Policy ch. 6.04 (Oct. 20, 2022) .................. 23

Regulations

182 WASH. ADMIN. CODE 505-0211 (2024) ................ 23

INTRODUCTION AND

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 1

Our Duty-USA (“Our Duty”) is a nonprofit

whose members across the United States have

varied political backgrounds, ethnicities, and sexual

orientations, but

the

experience

raising children

who formerly or currently reject

their sex. Members have had schools secretly

socially transition their children, deceive them

when they inquire about their children’s identities,

refuse to comply with their demands to cease

affirming their child’s rejection of their sex, and

report them to child welfare agencies for refusing

to endorse their child’s sex rejection. As detailed

below, some Our Duty members are directly affected

by the Washington legislative scheme at issue in

this case.

Child & Parental Rights Campaign, Inc.

(CPRC) is a nonprofit, public-interest law firm that

represents parents like Petitioner parents across the

country in challenging governmental actions that

threaten parental rights, including, as is true here, a

statutory scheme to hide children who assert a

discordant “gender identity” from fit parents. CPRC

represents parents who have challenged policies

which conceal from parents that their children are

being treated as something other than their sex at

school or who have lost custody of their gender

confused child to child protective services. The

All parties were timely notified of the filing of this brief.

This brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any

party and no person or entity other than amici curiae or their

counsel has made a monetary contribution toward the brief’s

preparation or submission.

Washington statute at issue here presents an even

more dangerous scenario for parental rights as

parents can be denied custody of their children

without due process if they fail to “affirm” their child’s

asserted discordant “gender identity.”

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Washington’s 2023 revisions to its Family

Reconciliation Act (“FRA”) eviscerate

the

fundamental right of Washington parents to direct the

care and upbringing of their children, “perhaps the

oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” this Court

has acknowledged. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65

(2000). Washington has made that fundamental right

contingent upon parents agreeing with the state’s

viewpoint on the controversial topic of providing

“gender-affirming

treatment” 2

children

experiencing confusion about their sex. Parents who

do not agree with their child’s request for such

treatment stand to lose custody of their child in favor

of a state-licensed youth shelter and the Department

of Children Youth and Families (“DCYF”) with no due

process. Under Washington’s legislative scheme,

parents are no longer the guardians of their children’s

health but are obstacles to be circumvented to fulfill

Washington

law

defines

“[G]ender-affirming

treatment” as “a service or product that a health care

provider *** prescribes to an individual to support and affirm

the

individual’s

gender

identity.”

W ASH.R EV.CODE

§74.09.675(3). This includes physical or mental health

services, §70.02.010(15), including “[f]acial feminization

surgeries”; “facial gender-affirming treatment”; “tracheal

shaves, hair electrolysis,” “mastectomies, breast reductions,

breast implants, or any combination of gender-affirming

procedures,” §74.09.675(2)(b).

the child’s request and the state’s agenda to facilitate

“gender affirming” treatment.

Prior to 2023, Washington’s FRA required that

a licensed youth shelter housing a runaway minor

notify the child’s parents within 72 hours and to

provide parents with the child’s location, a description

of the child’s physical and emotional condition and the

circumstances of the youth’s contact with the shelter.

WASH. REV. CODE § 13.32A.082 (1)(b)(i), (2)(c) (2013).

The only exception to the mandatory parental

notification requirement was “compelling reasons,”

narrowly defined as circumstances indicating that

notification would subject the minor to abuse or

neglect. That framework respected the presumption

that fit parents act in their children’s best interests

while permitting state intervention only when

genuine danger existed. Id., See Parham v. J.R., 442

U.S. 584, 602 (1979)

The 2023 amendments to the FRA radically

altered the rights and obligations governing runaway

youth who say they are experiencing confusion about

their sex, transforming a framework that respected

parental rights into one that supplants them unless

the parents adhere to the state’s viewpoint on “gender

affirming treatment.” SB5599, 68th Leg., Reg. Sess.

(Wash. 2023). SB5599 expanded the definition of

“compelling reasons” to delay (or deny) parental notice

to also include “[w]hen a minor is seeking or receiving

protected health care services” and expanded the

definition of “protected health care services” to include

“gender-affirming treatment[.]” WASH. REV. CODE

§§13.32A.082(2)(c)(ii), (2)(d) (2023). By defining a

minor’s pursuit of “protected health care services,”

including “gender affirming treatment,” as a per se

“compelling reason” to bypass parental notification,

the State created an irrebuttable presumption that

non-affirming parents are dangerous, equating

disagreement

over

controversial

medical

interventions with abuse or neglect, and authorizing

intrusions into both physical and legal custody

without any individualized finding of unfitness, even

in cases involving concededly fit, loving parents. That

is precisely the kind of practice this Court condemned

in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651–53, 656–57

(1972) where the State purported to dispense with

individualized hearings and simply assume that an

unwed father was unfit when fundamental family

integrity and custodial rights were at stake.

Under SB 5599 shelters must notify DCYF

instead of parents when a minor seeks or receives

“protected health care services,” now defined to

include surgeries, hormones, and behavioral health

services intended to affirm a child’s gender identity.

WASH. REV. CODE §§ 13.32A.082 (2)(c)(ii), (2)(d),

74.09.675. DCYF is required to make a “good faith

attempt” to notify the parent, but not to tell the parent

where the child is or provide information on the child’s

physical and emotional condition or to return the child

pending investigation. Instead, DCYF is to “offer

services to the youth and the family designed to

resolve the conflict, including offering family

reconciliation services, and accomplish a reunification

of the family.” WASH. REV. CODE § 13.32A.082(3)(a).

DCYF must also “offer to make referrals on behalf of

the minor for appropriate behavioral health services;

and [o]ffer services designed to resolve the conflict and

accomplish a reunification of the family.” WASH. REV.

CODE §§ 13.32A.082(3)(b).

In practice, this scheme authorizes the State to

conceal children from fit parents, assume decisionmaking authority over medical and psychological

care, and condition reunification on compliance with

State-managed “conflict resolution,” all without prior

notice, a hearing, or any judicial finding of abuse or

neglect. See WASH. REV. CODE §§ 13.32A.082(1)(b)(i),

(2)(c)(ii), (3)(a)–(b). As a result, parents may be

excluded from any decision-making and even any

contact with their child for extended periods while the

State facilitates potentially irreversible medical

interventions. Under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.

319, 335 (1976), the parents’ fundamental interest

and the severe risk of erroneous deprivation far

outweigh

any

generalized

state

interest,

demonstrating that the revised statutes violate

procedural due process.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling upholding the lower

court’s conclusion that the parents lacked standing

because their alleged injuries were “self-inflicted”

misconstrues standing doctrine and the nature of the

injury and assumes, without authority, that parents

inflict injury when they choose to raise their child as

their sex. See FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S.

289, 296-298 (2022) (The Court squarely rejects the

idea that a plaintiff’s injury is “self-inflicted” merely

because a plaintiff engaged in conduct that triggered

the challenged restriction). Parents are the express

objects of a statutory scheme designed to sideline

“non-affirming” parents. The panel’s decision conflicts

with this Court’s precedents and the Ninth Circuit’s

own parental rights cases, leaving parents with no

meaningful way to invoke pre-deprivation protections

before their rights are effectively eviscerated.

See International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v.

Ferguson, 161 F.4th 604, 608-612 (9th Cir. 2025)

(VanDyke, J., dissenting from denial of reh’g en

banc); Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1310–11 (9th Cir.

1997).

This Court’s intervention is necessary to

preserve parents’ fundamental rights to direct the

upbringing of their children, restore parents’

procedural due process rights, reaffirm the sanctity of

the parent‑child relationship, and ensure that fit and

loving parents remain the primary guardians of their

children.

ARGUMENT

Washington’s Statutory Scheme Infringes

Parents’ Fundamental Right to Direct the

Upbringing of Their Children.

A. The Law Is Unconstitutional on

Its Face.

As was true of the Washington statute struck

down in Troxel, the legislative scheme here is an

unconstitutional infringement on Petitioner parents’

fundamental right to make decisions concerning the

care, custody, and control of their children. Troxel, 530

U.S. at 72. Respondents have turned this Court’s longstanding precedent on the primacy of parental rights

on its head by enacting a presumption that parents

who do not adhere to the state’s viewpoint on “genderaffirming treatment” are unfit and their children the

mere creatures of the state.

In Troxel, this Court confirmed the long history

of recognizing parental rights as fundamental, in

conformance with its statement in Prince v.

Massachusetts that “it is cardinal with us that the

custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in

the parents, whose primary function and freedom

include preparation for obligations the state can

neither supply nor hinder.” 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).

This Court held:

[O]ur constitutional system long ago

rejected any notion that a child is the

mere creature of the State and, on the

contrary,

asserted

that

parents

generally have the right, coupled with

the high duty, to recognize and prepare

[their children] for additional obligations

... The law’s concept of the family rests

on a presumption that parents possess

what a child lacks in maturity,

experience, and capacity for judgment

required for making life’s difficult

decisions. More important, historically it

has recognized that natural bonds of

affection lead parents to act in the best

interests of their children.

Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68 (quoting Parham 442 U.S. at

602). “Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately

cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will

normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into

the private realm of the family to further question the

ability of that parent to make the best decisions

concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.” Id.

at 68-70.

As was true of the decisional framework in

Troxel, the framework adopted by the Washington

legislature here “directly contravenes the traditional

presumption that a fit parent will act in the best

interest of his or her child” and violates the parents’

fundamental rights. Id. at 69-70. By adding a minor’s

pursuit of “protected health care services” that

includes “gender affirming treatment” to the list of

“compelling reasons,” the State has enacted a

procedural presumption that a parent is unfit for

merely disagreeing with the state’s viewpoint on

“gender-affirming treatment.” This presumption

strips that parent of his or her authority over medical

decision-making and equates refusal to consent to

“gender affirming treatment” to abuse or neglect.

With no judicial determination that the parent is

unable to adequately care for his or her children,

Washington has supplanted fit parents with the State

in the very domain where parental authority is

strongest: decisions about profound medical and

psychological interventions. As this Court said in

Stanley, 405 U.S. at 657, such bypassing of an

individualized judicial determination of fitness for a

procedural presumption cannot stand. Absent a

judicial determination of unfitness, parents “retain a

substantial, if not the dominant, role” in medical and

mental health decision-making. Parham, 442 U.S. at

604.

There is no set of circumstances under which a

State may constitutionally presume that a parent is

abusive or neglectful solely because he or she declines

to endorse the State’s preferred “gender affirming”

protocol for a child. Under this Court’s precedents, the

State’s interest becomes compelling enough to

override the decisions of fit parents only when a court

has made an individualized finding of unfitness—not

when the legislature simply declares that a particular

ideological disagreement constitutes harm. See

Stanley, 405 U.S. at 657-58, Troxel, 530 U.S. at 69-70.

Washington’s revised FRA is an unconstitutional

infringement on fundamental parental rights that

should be addressed by this Court.

B. The Law Is Unconstitutional As

Applied to Fit Parents Who

Disagree with State Ideology.

As applied, the revisions to Washington’s FRA

target and disempower fit parents like Petitioners

who decline to adhere to the State’s agenda. The

legislative history shows that the revisions are

operating exactly as the Legislature intended.

Sponsors of the revisions to the FRA repeatedly

described the need to overcome parental opposition to

“gender-affirming treatment.” Proponents of the bill

frequently framed recalcitrant parents as the problem

SB 5599 was designed to solve. See App.93a–97a;

Senate Floor Debate on SB 5599 (Mar. 1, 2023)

(statement of Sen. Marko Liias); House Floor Debate

on SB 5599 (Apr. 12, 2023) (statement of Rep. Jamila

Taylor). For example, Sen. Marko Liias referred to the

“opposition and hostility from their family” children

seeking these services would face and how “a family is

standing between their young person and essential

health care services.” See App.93a–97a; Senate Floor

Debate on SB 5599 (Mar. 1, 2023) (statement of Sen.

Marko Liias).

As Petitioner parents alleged in their Verified

Complaint, the revisions are chilling Petitioners’

exercise of their fundamental rights to direct the

upbringing of their children. (App. 70a-77a). As fit

parents who have never been found abusive or

neglectful, Petitioners are being punished for

ideological disagreement with the State’s preferred

medical orthodoxy. Petitioners have children with

gender dysphoria, including children who have

previously run away or been socially transitioned at

school, and they seek to raise their children in

accordance with their sex. Because the statute

specifically targets runaway minors “seeking or

receiving protected health care services,” including

“gender affirming treatment,” these parents face a

state-created

threat.

Ordinary

discipline,

disagreement, or refusal to submit to the belief that

their child is born wrong may prompt their children to

flee to a licensed shelter that will conceal them and

trigger DCYF’s intervention. Once in DCYF’s care and

control, the child can obtain sex-rejecting

interventions. (See Note 5) And should DCYF

conclude that the non-affirming parents should lose

custody, the assigned guardian can consent to medical

treatments opposed by the otherwise fit parents. As a

result, their parenting decisions are overridden and

their speech chilled. They refrain from trying to

return their children to comfort in their sex so that

they can avoid the extreme medical impacts of sexrejecting interventions, lest they trigger the statutory

pathway that will remove their vulnerable child from

their home. See App. 70a-77a, International Partners

for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson, 161 F.4th at 608

(VanDyke, J., dissenting from denial of reh’g en banc).

The intrusion is all the more egregious in light of

the nature of the interventions being instituted

without parental input. As described in WASH. REV.

CODE § 74.09.675(2)(3), the “gender affirming

treatment” can include irreversible surgical and lifealtering medical interventions. The state's usurpation

of parental authority is unconscionable given the

grave and permanent consequences of the

interventions it authorizes. WASH. REV. CODE §

74.09.675(2)(3) defines “gender affirming treatment”

to include double mastectomies and genital surgeries

administered to minors without parental consent.

Supplanting parents’ choice to raise their child as his

or her sex strikes at the very heart of parental

decision-making authority, leaving life-altering

decisions for minor children to state actors with no

judicial intervention.

Reunification—if it occurs at all—comes too late.

By the time parents regain custody of children who

have exploited WASH. REV. CODE § 13.32A.082's

shelter and harboring of a runaway provisions,

irreversible medical interventions may have already

been performed. Parents are left to cope with

permanent, life-altering consequences of decisions

made by others without their consent. This

unconscionable deprivation of fundamental parental

rights cannot be justified by the respondents'

ideological goals.

II.

Washington's

Laws

Violate

the

Fourteenth Amendment by Depriving Parents

Their

Fundamental

Rights

Without

Procedural Due Process.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process

Clause requires “notice and opportunity for hearing

appropriate to the nature of the case” before the

government may infringe upon a protected liberty

interest. Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S.

532, 542 (1985). Washington’s statutory scheme

authorizes the deprivation of parents’ fundamental

right to care, custody and control of their children, one

of the “oldest of the fundamental liberty interests”

recognized by this Court, Troxel, 530 U.S. at 65,

without providing any pre‑deprivation process.

Under

Washington’s

revised

FRA

state‑licensed shelters and DCYF may deprive

parents of physical and legal custody by concealing

the child and assuming decision‑making authority

over “protected health care services” with no notice to

parents or opportunity to be heard. The law is

unconstitutional on its face and as applied to

Petitioners.

A. The Law Is Unconstitutional for

Failing to Provide Any PreDeprivation Process.

On its face, the amended FRA creates an

established state procedure for depriving an entire

class of parents of their fundamental rights without

any pre-deprivation legal safeguards. By expanding

what constitutes “compelling reasons” to include

when a minor is “seeking or receiving protected health

care

services,”

including

“gender

affirming

treatment,” the statute creates a legislative

presumption that a parent who does not consent to

sex-rejecting interventions is abusive or neglectful.

Instead of providing parents with a constitutionally

required notice and an individualized hearing on

parental fitness, the revised FRA bypasses parental

notification altogether. The shelter instead notifies

DCYF when a runaway minor is seeking sex-rejecting

interventions. WASH. REV. CODE §§ 13.32A.082

(1)(b)(i), (2)(c)(ii), 2(d).

Washington has created the same kind of

“procedure by presumption” to determine whether

parents will retain their fundamental right to the

care, custody and control of their children that this

Court condemned in Stanley, 405 U.S. at 656–57. As

was true in Stanley, Washington is depriving parents

of their fundamental rights without any judicial

process to determine that they are unfit to exercise

those rights, a result the Stanley Court found

“repugnant” to due process. Id. at 653. “Procedure by

presumption is always cheaper and easier than

individualized determination” Id. at 656. However,

when the presumption forecloses the ability for the

parent to be found fit to exercise his rights, “it

needlessly risks running roughshod over the

important interests of both parent and child. It

therefore cannot stand.” Id. at 656-57.

The same must be true here where the State

displaces parental custody before it even attempts

notice. The statutory trigger operates without any

prior judicial determination that the parents are unfit

or that notifying them would endanger the child.

Parents are displaced based solely on a child’s

unilateral statement to shelter staff or other third

parties that he or she is “seeking or receiving

protected health care services.” See WASH. REV. CODE

§ 13.32A.082(1)(b)(i), (3)(a). Because the statute

authorizes deprivation of parental rights without any

pre-deprivation notice or hearing, it violates

procedural due process on its face.

B. Application of the Mathews v.

Eldridge Factors Confirms the

Procedural

Due

Process

Violation.

The nature of the process due in particular

proceedings turns on a balancing of three factors: 1)

the private interests affected by the proceeding; 2) the

risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure;

and 3) the countervailing governmental interest

supporting use of the challenged procedure. Mathews

v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 335. Balancing those factors

in this case confirms that the statutory scheme

violates procedural due process.

First, the private interest here is paramount.

Few state actions are as severe as interference with

the parent-child relationship. Santosky v. Kramer,

455 U.S. 745, 759 (1982). Although Washington has

not formally instituted deprivation proceedings or a

court entered a termination decree, concealing

children for extended periods while assuming

unilateral authority over irreversible medical

interventions operates as a de facto termination of

parental rights for as long as the State maintains

control. It is, in practical effect, the kind of “severe

and…irreversible” intrusion on the family that this

Court has associated with termination proceedings.

See id.

The combination of concealment, prolonged

stage-managed separation, and control over a child’s

access to sex-rejecting treatments means that, for as

long as the statutory trigger is engaged, the core

incidents of custody are effectively transferred from

the parents to the State. Parents are stripped of the

physical possession of their child and the authority to

make consequential medical and psychological

decisions even though no court has found them unfit.

That severity of intrusion places Washington’s

scheme squarely within the category of state actions

that demand the most stringent procedural

safeguards

Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation is

extreme. Washington’s laws operate on a blanket

presumption that “non-affirming” parents are

dangerous, a “procedure by presumption” that

“needlessly risks running roughshod over the

important interests of both parent and child.” Stanley,

405 U.S. at 657. The State is facilitating potentially

irreversible medical or surgical treatments for a

minor who claims a transgender identity contrary to

the judgment of fit parents whom the Constitution

presumes act in their children’s best interests. See

Parham, 442 U.S. at 602. The probable value of

additional safeguards, such as timely notice and an

opportunity for an individualized hearing before

parental authority is displaced, is immense, because

they are the only means of ensuring that the child’s

circumstances and the parents’ fitness are actually

evaluated. See Stanley, 405 U.S. at 656–57.

Third, the State’s interest is at its weakest

when it seeks to interfere with the decisions of fit

parents, and it “registers no gain towards its declared

goals when it separates children from the custody of

fit parents.” Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652–53. The state’s

interest is particularly weak here where the state is

not, as was true in United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S.

495 (2025), exercising its legitimate authority to

regulate the medical profession in a way that might

affect parental rights. Instead of exercising its

legitimate

authority

regulate

medicine,

Washington is interfering with parental decisionmaking solely to pursue a state-imposed ideological

agenda.

That kind of legislative decree contravenes

precedent. Washington cannot transform ideological

disagreement into a compelling interest that justifies

suspending the fundamental rights of fit parents.

III. The Ninth Circuit’s Standing Analysis

Creates a Chilling Effect on Parental Rights.

The Ninth Circuit panel mischaracterized

Petitioners’ injuries as “self-inflicted.” International

Partners for Ethical Care Inc v. Ferguson, 146 F.4th

841, 849 (9th Cir. 2025). However, the parents are not

choosing to cabin their conduct and speech but are

responding to a coercive statutory scheme that

expressly subordinates their rights. When, as is true

here, the plaintiff is an object of the action (or forgone

action) at issue “there is ordinarily little question that

the action or inaction has caused him injury”. Lujan

v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561–62 (1992).

Here, Washington has deliberately constructed a

framework that makes the ordinary exercise of

parental authority, including refusal to consent to

sex-rejecting interventions, dangerous by routing

disfavored families into a pathway of concealment and

State-directed intervention. The resulting chilling of

Petitioners’ parenting and compelled self-censorship

are therefore present injuries fairly traceable to the

statute’s coercive design, not voluntary choices that

somehow defeat Article III standing. See

International Partners for Ethical Care, 161 F.4th at

609-611 (VanDyke, J., dissenting from denial of reh’g

en banc).

The panel also improperly dismissed the

substantial risk of future harm. Petitioners’ children

have already exhibited gender dysphoria, and the

statute creates concrete incentives for children to run

away to obtain treatment they believe they want. This

substantial risk of de facto loss of custody suffices for

standing. See Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S.

398, 414 n.5 (2013) (a “substantial risk” of harm can

satisfy the injury in fact requirement); Massachusetts

v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 521–25 & n.23 (2007)

(recognizing standing based on risk of serious future

injury).

Finally, the decision conflicts with the Ninth

Circuit’s own parental rights jurisprudence affirming

that the State may not interfere with the fundamental

right of parents to the care and custody of their

children without pre-deprivation notice and a

hearing. In Ram v. Rubin, the court concluded that it

was clearly established that due process required

notice and a hearing before the state interfered with

a parent’s custodial rights. 118 F.3d at 1310–11. By

denying standing to parents in the disfavored

category of “non-affirming” until after their children

have been concealed and their rights have been

gravely impaired, the panel nullified those

protections.

This Court’s review is necessary to make clear

that courts cannot use Article III standing to shield a

statutory scheme that prospectively abolishes

fundamental parental rights without due process of

law.

IV.

Amicus Our Duty Members’ Stories Show

the Real Harms of Washington’s Statutory

Scheme.

Stories from Our Duty members illustrate how

Washington’s statutory framework and related

policies operate in practice: they separate children

from fit parents and pressure families to “affirm”

discordant gender identities under the constant

threat of DCYF intervention, producing the very

coercion, family fragmentation, and de facto loss of

custody described above.

Julie Barrett 3

Julie Barrett’s twin daughters, H1 and H2.

experienced unspeakable sexual trauma as young

children. Unsurprisingly, the trauma resulted in

severe mental health issues. H1 began to act out

3 Abigail Shrier, When the State Comes for Your Kids: Social

Workers, Youth Shelters, and the Threat to Parental Rights, CITY

JOURNAL,

June

2021,

https://www.cityjournal.org/article/when-the-state-comes-for-your-kids.

during Covid lockdowns when she was 14. During

youth group at her church, H1. informed her pastor

that she was suicidal, and she was brought to Seattle

Children’s Hospital. Julie expected that the hospital

would partner with her to get H1 the help that she

needed but because of Washington’s laws permitting

minors aged 13 and older to decide their own inpatient

treatment, H1 discharged herself to a homeless youth

shelter (“Center”).

Julie’s attempts to contact her daughter were

blocked by the Center, where an unlicensed social

worker helped H1 engage an attorney from Legal

Counsel for Youth and Children to fill out a petition

for Child in Need of Services that would shift legal

guardianship to the Center. Reunification was clearly

not the goal.

Neither the hospital nor the Center called

DCYF to report suspected child abuse. The Center

seized control of the child without any due process.

Julie had to engage the police to forcibly extract H1

from the Center. Ultimately, Julie placed H1 in

various out-of-state inpatient facilities, not trusting

Washington. While the healing process had additional

impediments, H1 is an adult and with the help of her

mother, is living independently and working on

getting her GED.

H2 also struggled and due to her autism and

other mental health issues, had an individualized

education program. The same Center that interfered

with H1’s relationship with her family held a

presentation for H2’s class about transgender

identities, distributing “goodie bags” including the

number for the Center.

H2 then adopted a

transgender identity which was supported by the

school without Julie’s knowledge. H2 acknowledged

that she did it because “trans” students were given

favored status in the class. Julie removed H2 from

school, but her mental health continued to decline. H2

used the Center’s number when she was angry about

having to clean her room. Julie was able to intervene

before the Center got H2 in its clutches and enrolled

her in an out-of-state program for troubled teens.

H2, now 19, holds a job and is in technical

school. Julie never had any charges filed against her

for child abuse, but Washington’s child-shelter system

treated her as unfit trying to wrangle her children

with no due process.

Diana L. 4

Diana L. and her family live in Washington.

When her daughter T. was age 13, Diana discovered

that T.’s school had been secretly socially

transitioning her, using pronouns and a name that did

not align with her sex. The school counselor had

lunches with T. and her other trans-identified friends

during which she solidified T.’s self-rejection. T.

expressed fear that if her parents learned of her

identity she risked rejection and harm, a sentiment

with no factual basis. Diana unenrolled her from the

school, knowing that she risked being reported to

DCYF for not affirming T., who not only was suffering

from gender dysphoria but obsessive-compulsive

disorder.

T. was also being coached online that running

away would be a solution to non-affirming parents.

To protect against potential child welfare intervention,

some Our Duty members employ pseudonyms.

Diana learned that at least two of T.’s female friends

were also adopting male identities. Diana blocked T.’s

internet access after seeing T.’s obsession with

transgenderism. Predictably, T. re-identified with her

sex (as did one of T.’s friends whose parents also

unenrolled them from the school). Diana has younger

daughters and, fearing the aggressive transgenderism

push in Washington, explored moving.

Kristina S.

Kristina S. and her family resided in

Washington until 2022, when they relocated due to

concerns regarding their minor daughter Z.’s

transgender identification and Washington’s parental

authority laws. Z., exposed to gender identity concepts

through internet content, peers, and Anime

subculture,

experienced

sudden-onset

gender

dysphoria during early adolescence with no prior

childhood indicators.

Z. initially concealed her transgender

identification while obtaining parental consent for

menstrual suppression. At age 12, Z. requested male

pronouns and name usage, to which her parents

briefly complied. Z. subsequently requested a chest

binder, a precursor to a radical mastectomy.

Following the suicide of a peer in the school’s

Rainbow Club, Kristina researched gender identity

issues. She also discovered Z. had been consuming

transgender-affirming YouTube content, using

exclusively male identification at school, and avoiding

all restroom facilities out of fear. Kristina then shared

her research findings with Z., including material

addressing transition-related harms.

After the family relocated from Washington,

separating her from her peer group, Z., now almost an

adult, gradually discontinued her transgender

identity.

Brooke G.

Prior to age 12, Brooke G.’s daughter A.

demonstrated typical adolescent development,

maintaining

strong

academic

performance,

participating in athletics, engaging in multiple

hobbies, and sustaining an active social network.

When school closures occurred due to COVID-19, A.’s

online activity increased, including TikTok usage.

Shortly after A.’s thirteenth birthday, she

presented her parents with a written declaration of an

obviously fabricated childhood narrative of having a

male identity. A. requested “transition,” including

surgical intervention and to stop using her given

name and sex-based pronouns.

In eighth grade, A.’s public school counselor

met with A. without parental notification or consent,

completed administrative forms changing A.’s name

and sex designation in school records. School

personnel subsequently adopted male nomenclature

and pronouns for A. and mandated student

compliance. The school inquired whether A. was

suicidal, which was a concern A. had not previously

expressed.

Following the school’s secret social transition,

A.’s behavior deteriorated significantly. Academic

performance declined, and she engaged in property

vandalism, insubordination toward educators, theft

from peers, and self-harm. A. deliberately terminated

existing friendships, discontinued athletic and hobby

participation, and discarded personal possessions.

In response, Brooke restricted A.’s internet

access, mandated daily outdoor activities, and

increased family socialization efforts. Brooke secured

therapeutic services focused on identifying underlying

depression rather than gender affirmation. Brooke

withdrew A. from school when it refused to treat A. as

a female.

Brooke’s strategy resulted in A.’s return to her

beneficial

behavior

patterns

and

reestablishment of comfort with her sex. A. now views

her transgender identification with regret. Brooke

subsequently learned that a former peer, who was

trans-identified, had been encouraging A. to run away

from home. This would have granted A. an

opportunity to obtain sex-rejecting interventions

without parental consent, pursuant to Washington’s

RFA law, especially when DCYF takes custody from

the parents. 5

5 See Wash. State Dep’t of Child., Youth & Fams., Admin.

Policy

ch.

6.04

(Oct.

20,

2022),

https://www.dcyf.wa.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/Admin-6.04.pdf

(requiring DCYF to “[a]ssist children, youth, and young adults”

who are “[s]eeking affirming medical, behavioral, and mental

health services”); see also WASH. REV. CODE §§ 71.34.500, .530

(permitting minors age thirteen and older to obtain inpatient and

outpatient mental health treatment without parental consent);

WASH. REV. CODE §§ 48.43.005, .505 (defining minors who may

obtain health care without parental consent as “protected

individuals” and requiring insurers to restrict disclosure of

gender-affirming care to policyholders); Smith v. Seibly, 431 P.2d

719, 723 (Wash. 1967) (recognizing Washington’s mature minor

doctrine); 182 WASH. ADMIN. CODE 505-0211 (2024) WASH. REV.

CODE § 7.70.065(2)(a)(ii (authorizing Apple Health coverage for

sex-related medical interventions for minors and permitting

Katie S.

In 2020, during sixth grade, Katie’s daughter

B. adopted a “non-binary” identity. Katie initially

believed this identity crisis to be a developmental fad;

however, the identity evolved to a transgender male

identification. Upon return to in-person instruction

during B.’s eighth-grade year following COVID-19

school closures, B. experienced significant mental

health deterioration, with documented symptoms

including severe anxiety, depression, and impaired

academic functioning and school participation.

Katie retained a therapist for B. who without

knowledge or consent employed a transgenderaffirming treatment approach. The therapist coached

B. on disclosure strategies to parents, recommended

parental use of chosen name and pronouns, and

suggested parental participation in transgender

advocacy support groups. Both parents refused to

advance the child’s false identity.

B.’s mental health continued to deteriorate,

resulting in additional diagnoses of AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and anxiety disorder

secondary to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. These

conditions necessitated withdrawal from traditional

school enrollment, psychotropic medication, and a

partial hospitalization treatment program. Despite

documented comorbid mental health conditions, the

healthcare providers continued to cement the

maladaptive “transgender” identity.

DCYF to assume medical decision-making authority for children

in care).

B’s parents privately disagreed with affirming

her trans identity but refrained from expressing this

position to providers, recognizing the potential

custody implications under Washington law.

Following a suicide attempt and a provider’s

suggestion for hormone therapy, Katie and her

husband determined that accessing appropriate care

was not feasible within Washington. Recognizing the

risk of state intervention and potential loss of custody,

Katie relocated with B. to Georgia, splitting the family

into two units.

Since relocating to Georgia, B.’s identity has

regressed from transgender to non-binary, concurrent

with improvement in overall mental health status. B.

recently disclosed to Katie that had she remained in

Washington, she had planned to run away with

another female peer presenting with sex rejection.

Our Duty’s members’ experiences are not

outliers. A Pakistani immigrant father fled with his

family from Washington after Seattle Children’s

Hospital recommended that he take his very

distressed neurodivergent teenage son to a gender

clinic in 2020. Fortunately, the father was counseled

by an attorney and a trusted psychiatrist to feign

support of his son’s newly acquired “transgender”

identity to regain control over his son’s medical

treatment and avoid DCYF attempting to sever his

parental rights. 6

In 2019, a then-16-year-old daughter who

struggled with an eating disorder, had other mental

health issues and had adopted a “transgender

identity” at age 13 following a sexual assault in

See note 3.

elementary school, was admitted into a Washington

State hospital due to a suicide attempt. Her parents

explained to the hospital’s social worker that they

were not affirming her transgender identity. A kind

nurse warned the parents that the hospital’s social

worker was working to remove their control over the

child. To dodge child welfare’s involvement, the

parents immediately took their daughter home. The

young girl ultimately stopped identifying as

transgender. 7

An Indian family went into hiding when they

discovered that their daughter’s Washington teacher

was aggressively promoting the transgender identity

foisted upon her. While the family was on the run, the

school administrator contacted the parents, querying

them about their whereabouts. The teacher who had

been promoting the transgender identity emailed the

minor that she could come live with her. The family

fled back to India. 8

These experiences are the foreseeable and

intended operation of Washington’s statutory scheme

as applied to fit, “non-affirming” parents. They

underscore that the constitutional injuries are not

abstract because they have already forced families to

flee the State, split households, and endure de facto

loss of custody and decision-making authority over

their own children.

Id.

Michael Torres, We Thought She Was a Great Teacher,

JOURNAL,

Winter

2024,

https://www.cityCITY

journal.org/article/we-thought-she-was-a-great-teacher.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should

grant the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

February 17, 2026