The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from a Florida couple who argued their parental rights were violated by a school board policy — since revised — that had barred staff from notifying them when their daughter sought to use a different name and pronouns at school. By turning the case away, the high court left intact a lower-court ruling and again avoided weighing in on the broader tension between parental authority and school policies designed to protect student privacy and prevent schools from outing transgender students.
At least three justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — have previously urged courts to address whether a school district violates parents’ rights when it affirms a student’s gender transition without informing or obtaining consent from parents, calling the question one of “great and growing national importance.” The court’s conservative majority also previously blocked a California law that would have prohibited schools from withholding notification about a child’s request to use different pronouns while litigation over the measure continued.
The dispute stems from procedures the Leon County School Board adopted in 2018 to balance safety, privacy, student rights and parental notice when a student sought to assert a different gender identity. Under the guidance, schools would treat students consistent with the gender identity they asserted and, for students identifying as transgender or gender nonconforming, create a “support plan” at a meeting with school officials. The procedures recognized that notifying some parents could put students at risk and directed staff to seek the student’s consent before informing parents about a support plan.
A few years later, Florida adopted a “Parents’ Bill of Rights” asserting parental authority over a child’s upbringing, education and health care. To comply, the Leon County board revised its procedures in June 2022 to ensure school personnel would not intentionally withhold information from parents. Several other states have enacted similar measures on parental notification and consent.
Court filings identify the student involved as A.G., a Tallahassee middle-schooler. According to the filings, A.G. told her parents, Jan and Jeffrey Littlejohn, she was uncertain about her gender and asked to be called “J” and to use they/them pronouns; the parents allowed “J” as a nickname but did not consent to a different gender identity at school. A.G. later told a school counselor she wanted to use a different name and pronouns. School staff met with the student to complete a support plan; the Littlejohns say they were not informed or invited because their child did not request their presence. They learned of the meeting days later, demanded the school stop meeting privately with their child and stop treating her as nonbinary, and were subsequently given a copy of the support plan. The parties dispute whether school officials met with A.G. again.
The Littlejohns sued the school board and district officials in 2021, alleging the board’s actions infringed their rights to direct their child’s care and upbringing. A trial court dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed. The appeals court said it agreed the school had intruded on the parents’ fundamental rights but concluded the plaintiffs did not satisfy the legal standard required to prove a violation of substantive due process.
By declining review, the Supreme Court left the 11th Circuit decision in place.