Supreme Court declines case on gender identity policy in schools

The panel majority said the parents’ opposition reflected a policy disagreement that should be addressed at the ballot box.

by Safia Samee Ali | May. 22, 2024

Story at a glance

Montgomery County, Maryland has a “Parental Preclusion Policy” that instructs schools not to inform parents of students’ gender support plans without student consent.

The Supreme Court refused to take a case Monday that would take up the issue of whether the Maryland school policy violates the rights of parents.

Three parents with children attending public schools in Montgomery County appealed a lower court’s ruling holding that they lacked the necessary legal standing to challenge the school policy.

(NewsNation) — The Supreme Court refused to take a case Monday that would take up the issue of whether a Maryland school policy on gender identity violates the rights of parents.

Three parents with children attending public schools in the Washington suburb of Montgomery County appealed a lower court’s ruling holding that they lacked the necessary legal standing to challenge the school policy, reported Reuters.

Under the “Parental Preclusion Policy” that was passed by the Montgomery County Board of Education, schools were permitted to develop gender support plans for students to ensure they “feel comfortable expressing their gender identity.”

Schools could help transgender and gender-nonconforming students use their preferred pronouns, names and bathrooms and bar staff from informing parents of those plans without a student’s consent, the outlet reported.

However, three parents sued the school, arguing that the policy deprives them of their right to be fully informed and involved in addressing issues relating to their minor children.

“Plaintiff parents have monitored and guided their minor children’s sexual development and instruction, and they desire to continue to do so according to their own assessment of their children’s best interests, but they are being impeded by the Parental Preclusion Policy,” Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., an attorney with Claybrook LLC representing the parents, wrote in their petition, per Courthouse News.

The school board defended its position, saying it had a compelling interest in protecting student privacy.

“As courts have recognized in cases weighing families’ privacy rights, students retain ‘the right not to have intimate facts concerning one’s life disclosed without one’s consent,’” Alan Schoenfeld, an attorney with Wilmer Cutler representing the school, wrote in a brief before the court, according to the outlet.

None of the parents who brought the suit had children who were utilizing the school policy, which led a lower court and eventually an appeals court to rule against them as they lacked standing.

The panel majority said the parents’ opposition reflected a policy disagreement that should be addressed at the ballot box, not to unelected judges in the courthouse, reported Courthouse News.