The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case that asked whether a public school violates the rights of parents when it facilitates a child’s social gender change without the knowledge or agreement of the parents.
The justices declined to hear an appeal from parents in Massachusetts who sued their child’s school district. The high court left in place a lower court verdict that rejected the parents’ argument that their rights were violated.
But the justices could get another chance to address the ongoing issue of parental rights in public schools, as a similar case brought by parents in Florida is awaiting action by the top court.
The Supreme Court in October refused to consider another court case filed by two families in Colorado.
But Justice Samuel Alito, supported by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, argued at the time that the subject of parents’ rights is one of “great and growing national importance.”
In March, the Supreme Court stopped a California statute that would have prevented school districts from mandating instructors to tell parents when their child wishes to use alternative pronouns while litigation plays out in a case on its temporary docket.
Across the country, a growing number of legal disputes have been unfolding in the courts, pitting parents’ rights to decide their child’s care against rules meant to safeguard the privacy of pupils and prohibit public schools from outing transgender students to their families.
The high court declined to hear a lawsuit filed by Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri, whose middle school-age child, B.F., in court filings, was enrolled in a public school in Ludlow, Massachusetts.
The parents claimed the school was “pushing beliefs concerning gender ideology behind the parents’ backs and encouraging their children to question their own identity.”
As a result, B.F. began to raise questions about her gender identity and started seeing a therapist, Foote and Silvestri wrote in court papers.
The parents stated that they had informed the school that they would be seeking professional assistance from B.F.
According to the filings, Silvestri directed school officials to refrain from engaging in private discussions with her child to resolve mental health concerns “as a family and with the appropriate professionals.”
Foote and Silvestri alleged that the Ludlow Education Committee, the town’s education board, rejected their request and instead initiated the social transition of B.F. without their knowledge.
Teachers began using alternative pronouns and names to address the student at school, and the school counselor indicated that B.F. had the option of selecting which restroom to use.
But lawyers for the school said it took those steps after the student declared in an email to school officials, “I am genderqueer,” and requested that teachers use a new name and “any pronouns (other than it/its).”
The parents asserted that the school and its personnel were the ones who promoted the modifications.
Foote and Silvestri contended that the Ludlow school system has an implicit policy that allows children to determine whether or not to socially transition at school without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
They also asserted that the protocol mandates that staff use a child’s legal name and pronouns, which are determined by the sex allocated at birth, when communicating with parents, and a student’s preferred name and pronouns at school.
In 2022, the parents filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Ludlow School Committee and officials, asserting that the school’s actions violated their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children and to make medical and mental health decisions for them.
The case was dismissed by a federal district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit subsequently upheld that decision. The 1st Circuit determined that parents are unable to “create a preferred educational experience for their child in public school” by invoking the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.
“The measures the Parents cite … all involve decisions by Ludlow’s staff about how to reasonably meet diverse student needs within the school setting,” the unanimous three-judge panel wrote in its February 2025 decision. “The Supreme Court has never suggested that parents have the right to control a school’s curricular or administrative decisions.”
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Foote and Silvestri cited a string of rulings dating back to the 1920s that reaffirm that parents have the right to make decisions about the upbringing of their children.
They said that more than 1,000 school districts have adopted policies where parents are not informed about gender identity matters involving their children and said the Supreme Court must clarify for lower courts that nonreligious parents “do not relinquish their parental rights when they enroll their child in a public school.”
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
