by Greg Piper
Justices reject case that "squarely raised the question" of schools hiding students' gender identity but can still take a similar "fully briefed" case, plaintiffs' lawyer says. Districts rebut feds' findings, blast process as bad faith.
As so-called gender secrecy lawsuits against school districts wind their way through the courts without guidance from the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is pushing ahead to force the disclosure of medically relevant information about students to their parents, at least for the duration of President Trump's second term.
The high court Tuesday declined to review a ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a school district's willful deception of a couple about their daughter's identification as a boy, which the girl's middle school was actively facilitating against the explicit instructions of her parents, letting her use boys' intimate facilities and a new name.
That leaves in place a 4-1 split among federal appellate courts on whether "nonreligious parents’ rights are limited to the initial enrollment decision" in public school, according to the unsuccessful petition for review by the Child and Parental Rights Campaign (CPRC) and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
Days earlier, two Department of Education offices accused four Kansas school districts of violating Title IX and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, alleging they let schools hide students' identification as the opposite sex from their parents, let students use intimate facilities based on gender identity and let males participate in girls' sports.
The Office for Civil Rights and Student Privacy Policy Office threatened enforcement action, including termination of federal funding, if the four districts don't sign resolution agreements that condition athletic participation, intimate facilities and overnight accommodations on sex and share documents related to "gender transition" with students' parents.
SPPO put state superintendents on notice a year ago in a "Dear Colleague" letter that hiding students' gender identity from their parents was a "priority concern" for the office, and Education Secretary Linda McMahon's cover letter emphasized that "by natural right and moral authority, parents are the primary protectors of their children," the department's statement said.
The reticence of SCOTUS to review a case that could finally resolve outstanding questions about the extent of parental rights in public schools has given primacy to efforts by Republican-led states and the federal government to protect sex-based rights.
A South Carolina bill (H-4756) approved by both chambers last week would require public K-12 schools and colleges to designate restrooms, locker rooms and changing facilities by sex, and offer a "single-user restroom and changing facility," or lose 25% of their state funding. It would also subject them to lawsuits by anyone encountering the opposite sex in their facility.
ADF senior state government relations director Tonya Shellnut thanked state Rep. Travis Moore and Speaker Pro Tempore Tommy Pope for helping "carry it across and the many who fought for this moment."
The ACLU of South Carolina, which unsuccessfully lobbied to stop the bill in the Legislature, hasn't said whether it would sue to block it if signed by Gov. Henry McMaster, but its executive director Jace Woodrum, a woman who identifies as a man, told local TV station WRDW it would encourage bullying and harassment of transgender students.
SCOTUS 'procedural' ruling shortchanges parents
Four of nine justices must vote to grant a petition for the high court to review a case, but what's more telling about its unexplained refusal to review the decision by the 1st Circuit – which had no GOP-nominated judges until last fall – is that no justice publicly dissented.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the court's refusal in 2024 to consider whether parents had legal standing to challenge a Wisconsin gender secrecy policy. Alito and Thomas warned that lower courts were using standing to avoid "particularly contentious constitutional questions" affecting over 1,000 districts.
The Boston-based 1st Circuit said Ludlow Public Schools did not violate the "substantive due process" of parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri because courts haven't recognized the duplicity of hidden gender transitions as such a violation.
CPRC President Vernadette Broyles said the justices passed on a case that "squarely raised the question of whether schools may withhold critical information from parents and override their judgment on matters of their child’s health, well-being, and upbringing," but that "it would not be productive to speculate" on the high court's reasoning.
She said SCOTUS has one more opportunity to "provide the nation with clear, final precedent on this issue," which is CPRC's challenge to gender secrecy policies by Florida's Leon County School Board on behalf of January and Jeffrey Littlejohn.
President Trump called the district's behavior "child abuse" and identified the Littlejohns by name a year ago in his joint address to Congress, where January was first lady Melania Trump's guest, a week before a divided, acrimonious 11th Circuit panel ruled the district's willful deception of the Littlejohns did not "shock the conscience" for liability purposes.
The case is "fully briefed on the merits and presents the ideal vehicle for the Court to confirm that parents—not schools—have the constitutionally protected right to direct the upbringing of their children, including decisions involving gender identity and whether their child will be affirmed and raised as their sex at school," Broyles said in a written statement.
It's not enough that SCOTUS reinstated a permanent injunction against California's gender secrecy policies on its emergency docket last month, according to Broyles, because "it was a procedural ruling" even though six justices said lower courts were ignoring a century of parental rights precedents and that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed.
'Complete lack of any meaningful investigation,' botched facts
The Department of Education's findings against the Kansas City, Kansas Public School District, Olathe Public Schools, Shawnee Mission School District and Topeka Public Schools came eight months after opening the investigations.
SPPO, which enforces FERPA, cited "lack of substantive documentation" from the districts as the basis for its determination that their policies "were likely to prevent schools from notifying parents" of a gender transition, "even if the parent requested their child’s records."
OCR, which enforces Title IX, distinguished between alleged violations among districts.
Kansas City and Topeka unlawfully let male students who identify as girls use female restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms, while Olathe and Shawnee Mission let both sexes use single-sex facilities based on gender identity.
Kansas City and Topeka also let males who identify as girls participate in girls' sports, according to OCR.
All but Kansas City admitted to OCR that "male students have been allowed to use female restrooms and locker rooms" because they identify as girls, while Shawnee Mission's athletic participation policies "raise significant compliance concerns," OCR said.
"Schools should never subject girls to unsafe, uncomfortable, and unfair environments, nor should they abuse their authority by hiding the most sensitive information about a child’s health and wellbeing from that child’s parents," Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said in the Education Department's statement.
Except for Shawnee Mission, which didn't answer a query, the districts told Just the News they reject the findings, with two denouncing the feds for how the process was handled.
Kansas City said the findings are "not supported by the facts or law" and that it acts "in full good faith compliance" with Title IX and FERPA and with Kansas High School Athletic Association rules on "interscholastic and intramural athletic activities."
It linked eight policies relevant to the investigation: transgender guidance, transgender athletic participation, student records release, discrimination complaints, sex harassment, prohibition of discrimination, harassment and retaliation, student activities and another on student records release.
"We are concerned with the manner in which this matter has been communicated publicly prior to a full and collaborative resolution process," Topeka said, claiming it has "cooperated fully throughout this process" and will "continue to work in good faith" with OCR to resolve this "through established processes."
Topeka has demonstrated its compliance with Title IX and FERPA and has always "honored parents' right to access education records and information regarding their student," it said. "The district does not withhold or hide any student educational records from parents."
Olathe took the most umbrage at the feds, claiming it has been "thrust into the midst of political theatre and forced to respond to allegations that are completely unfounded or being grossly misrepresented, all on taxpayer time and money."
Its effort to obtain a resolution agreement "has not been reciprocated" and has departed from "any other collaborative experience the district has had with the Department of Education and its staff," Olathe said, with no good-faith discussion by the feds, a "complete lack of any meaningful investigation" and "incorrect and predetermined decisions" behind the findings.
"OCR and SPPO have attempted to retroactively hold" the district accountable for laws and executive orders not in effect for the investigative period, and the offices falsely claimed its policies let students use intimate facilities based on gender identity, Olathe said.
It also published an April 17 letter to OCR's regional director and SPPO from its external lawyer, who said the "District was already in compliance with the law at the time of your 2025 letter" but has rescinded its prior guidance and adopted new guidance "to voluntarily comply and resolve all three issues" the feds identified last summer.
The letter argues the district is being pulled in multiple directions on what the law actually says.
"Despite the flux in national law notwithstanding (including a decision currently pending by the U.S. Supreme Court) and at OCR’s specific request, the District has updated its Guidance to add references to its intramural athletic programs for high school students," the letter says.
"Despite federal appellate case law in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and specifically at OCR’s request, the District updated its Guidance to confirm that it maintains restrooms, locker rooms and showers as well as overnight accommodations separately for boys and girls," it says.
Olathe is also ensuring that "its annual orientation training for staff will include the FERPA requirements regarding parent access to the student’s education record maintained by the District," which has never "maintained a separate education record regarding a student’s gender identity."
Greg Piper
Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/supreme-court-mia-schools-deceiving-parents-trump-administration-and-red
No comments:
Post a Comment