The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has declined to review Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, a case centered on whether parents have the legal standing to challenge school policies that exclude them from critical decisions about their children’s health and identity. The decision leaves unresolved questions about the extent to which school districts can implement such policies without parental consent.
The case originated in the Eau Claire Area School District, where policies allow school staff to hide gender identity transitions for students without notifying parents. The district further instructed staff that “parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned.” A group of parents, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) and America First Legal (AFL), filed a lawsuit arguing that this policy usurps parental decision-making authority and directly harms families. Despite these claims, lower courts dismissed the case on the grounds of standing, a decision upheld by the Seventh Circuit.
The petitioners sought SCOTUS review to address the key question: Do parents have standing to challenge school policies that explicitly override their authority on major health-related decisions and conceal this from them? While SCOTUS declined the petition, a dissenting opinion from Justices Alito and Thomas, with Justice Kavanaugh joining, emphasized the gravity of the issue. The dissent argued that the parents’ concerns were not speculative, stating, “[T]he parents’ fear that the school district might make decisions for their children without their knowledge and consent is not ‘speculative.’” The justices expressed concern about lower courts using Article III standing to sidestep contentious constitutional questions.
According to WILL, Eau Claire’s policy is not unique; it reflects a nationwide trend among school districts. More than a thousand districts have similar policies that enable schools to withhold information about gender transitions from parents who may oppose such actions. These policies have created legal and societal debates over the balance between student privacy and parental rights.
The Court’s denial leaves the policy intact, raising significant questions about the role of parents in decisions that profoundly impact their children.
