Parents across the United States are raising concerns that public schools are socially transitioning children without parental knowledge or approval. Critics say this practice worsens what they call a growing trend of gender confusion among teenagers and violates parents’ rights.
One high-profile case emerged in Leon County, Florida, where the local school board created a detailed guide called the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Gender Nonconforming and Questioning Support Guide. This document advised school staff not to inform parents if a child identified as transgender. It also stated that students have a legal right to keep their gender identity and the school’s support actions private from their parents.
Based on that policy, school administrators met in secret with the 13-year-old daughter of January and Jeffrey Littlejohn in the fall of 2020. The meeting resulted in a “gender support plan,” which allowed the student to choose her name, pronouns, bathroom use, and overnight accommodations without involving her parents. The plan said staff would refer to the child by her chosen name and “they/them” pronouns at school, but would revert to her birth name and “she/her” when speaking to the parents.
The Littlejohns filed a federal lawsuit, claiming their constitutional rights were violated. They argued that the school had interfered with their rights to raise their child and make medical and mental health decisions for her. However, the district court dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld that decision in a 2-1 vote.
The appeals court ruled that even if the parents’ rights had been violated, they would also need to prove the school’s actions “shocked the conscience.” The majority said this standard applies to executive actions—such as decisions made by school officials—unlike legislative actions, which are judged differently.
This ruling clashes with decisions from at least three other federal appeals courts. Those courts have held that plaintiffs need to show either a violation of rights or conscience-shocking behavior, but not both. Although he agreed with the majority ruling, Judge Kevin Newsom called the outcome “totally bizarre” and said he felt bound by legal precedent.
Now, the Littlejohns are asking the full Eleventh Circuit to review the case en banc. They argue that existing legal precedent does not require proof of conscience-shocking behavior when fundamental rights are at stake. Their petition warns that the current ruling could set a dangerous legal standard—making it harder for people to hold public officials accountable depending on which branch of government commits the violation.
The Manhattan Institute, a public policy think tank, filed a legal brief supporting the Littlejohns. The institute emphasized that social transition is not a neutral act. Citing medical research, the brief argued that allowing social transitions in schools is a form of psychological and social intervention. As such, it should fall under the authority of parents, not school administrators.
The legal battle comes as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently released a major report questioning the safety and effectiveness of hormonal treatments and other gender-related medical interventions for young people. The report urges caution and more research.
Critics of school-based transition policies argue that decisions about a child’s gender identity are too serious to be handled by educators without parental involvement. They say such choices affect a child’s long-term mental and physical health and should be made within the family, not by public institutions.
