The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear an appeal from parents seeking to sue a public school district over policies that support student gender identity by withholding name or pronoun changes from parents without the child’s consent.
The Florida Legal Challenge
The case involved the parents of a student who identified as nonbinary even as attending a middle school in Tallahassee. January and Jeffrey Littlejohn alleged in court papers that officials at Deerlake Middle School, part of the School Board of Leon County, established a “covert gender affirmation plan” for their 13-year-old child in 2020.
The Littlejohns, who refused to allow their child to use the pronouns “they, them” or change their name, sued the school board and officials in federal court in 2021. They argued that these actions violated their fundamental parental rights under the 14th Amendment’s promise of due process.
Courts Reject “Shock the Conscience” Claim
A lower court originally dismissed the lawsuit, a decision the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in 2025. The 11th Circuit determined that for such a claim to proceed, the violation of rights by public officials must “shock the conscience,” which the court found was not the case here.
The appellate court further noted that school officials did not force the child to take any specific action. Most significantly, the court stated that the defendants did not act with an “intent to injure,” but instead “sought to help the child.”
A Patchwork of National Rulings
The Supreme Court has recently turned away similar challenges from Maryland, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. However, the court has taken different stances in other contexts, such as in March when it blocked California measures that could limit sharing gender identity information with parents.
In that California case, a 6-3 conservative majority ruled that the state’s policies likely violated due process rights and the religious beliefs of the parents. This occurs as the court confronts broader efforts by Republican-led states and the administration of President Donald Trump to restrict transgender rights.
Other recent rulings include the June 2025 decision upholding a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for minors. In January, the court appeared ready to uphold state laws that ban transgender athletes from participating on female sports teams.
Future Implications
Because the court declined to hear the Littlejohns’ appeal, the current legal standards in the 11th Circuit may continue to govern similar disputes in that region. Future litigation could potentially shift focus toward the 2021 Florida law bolstering parental rights, which led the school board to update its guide.
The updated guide now specifies that officials must not withhold information from parents unless a “reasonably prudent person” believes disclosure would result in neglect, abandonment, or abuse. This change in policy may influence how future cases are argued if parents claim the updated standards are not being followed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals uphold the dismissal of the lawsuit?
The court concluded that the actions of the school officials did not “shock the conscience,” which is a required standard for this type of claim. The court likewise found that officials did not act with an intent to injure, but rather sought to help the student.
How has the School Board of Leon County updated its gender support guide?
In response to a 2021 Florida law bolstering parental rights, the guide now states that officials cannot withhold information from parents unless a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosing the information would lead to abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
Has the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in similar cases?
Yes. In March, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority blocked measures in California that could limit the sharing of gender identity information with parents, ruling that such policies likely violated due process and the religious beliefs of the parents.
How should schools balance the privacy of students with the constitutional rights of parents?
