(Austin, TX | December 9, 2024)—On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a petition to hear Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, a case highlighting the ongoing national conflict between parents’ rights and overreaching school policies—but with a dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, emphasizing the need for courts to address this important issue.
The lawsuit challenges a Wisconsin school district’s gender identity policy—under which parents and guardians “are not entitled to know their kids’ identities” and must instead “earn” access to information about their minor children from school employees—on behalf of a group of concerned local parents. The parents filed an appeal asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case after a lower court ruled that they lacked standing to challenge the policy because they could not yet show that the district had hidden information about their children from them.
On July 8, the Liberty Justice Center and clinical psychologist Dr. Erica Anderson jointly filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hear the case. The brief argued that school administrators and special interest groups are using gender identity policies like the Eau Claire Area School District’s to violate parents’ constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing, and urged the Court to issue a ruling upholding parents’ rights against such abuses.
In an order issued December 9, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case.
Notably, however, the dissenting opinion by Justices Alito and Thomas recognized that the case “presents a question of great and growing national concern”—namely, whether a school district “violates parents’ fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of their children” when “it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process” without parental knowledge or consent.
The Justices’ dissent also called attention to the magnitude of the issue, noting that over 1,000 school districts across the country have adopted policies that instruct employees to encourage students to socially transition to a new gender—while “specifically encourag[ing] school personnel to keep parents in the dark about the ‘identities’ of their children.”
The opinion also expressed “concern” that courts are using standing as a way of “avoiding” the issue of parental rights—particularly because the school district’s policy would effectively prevent parents from being able to prove standing until after the school had already violated their rights.
Justice Kavanaugh separately stated that he too would have granted the parents’ petition and heard the case.
Following the Court’s announcement, the Liberty Justice Center released the following statement from Senior Counsel Emily Rae:
“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear this important case. While this is of course not the result that parental rights advocates were hoping for, the fight is not over. There are many other ongoing cases involving parents’ rights and notification policies, and I am optimistic that the Court will take up one or several of these crucial cases in the coming months.
“Policies that encourage school administrators to facilitate the transition of minor children—without involving or even informing their parents or guardians—are an issue of growing national importance. We are proud to challenge these destructive policies and other actions by the state legislators and school boards who want to keep secrets from parents, and we will continue to stand up for parents’ rights across the country.”
The Liberty Justice Center’s amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District is available here.
The Liberty Justice Center continues to fight for parents’ rights across the country by challenging state and federal laws that infringe on families’ fundamental rights, defending schools’ parental notification policies, filing amicus briefs in key cases on parents’ rights, and continuing to represent all our clients at no cost—to them or to taxpayers.
