The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a case challenging Montgomery County Public Schools’ gender identity guidelines that provide support for transgender students.
The lawsuit, John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education, was filed by two MCPS parents in 2020. The unidentified parents alleged that MCPS’ gender identity guidelines, which advise staff not to disclose a student’s stated gender to their parents without permission, violate federal laws such as the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
The parents also argued the district’s gender identity guidelines violate their constitutional rights to “direct the care, custody, education, and control of their minor children,” according to court records.
On behalf of the plaintiffs, attorney Frederick Claybrook Jr. of the Washington, D.C.-based Claybrook law firm expressed disappointment Monday about the court’s denial of a review.
“Policies like those of Montgomery County Public Schools (Md.) target parents to prevent them from knowing that their children are transitioning at school,” Claybrook wrote in an email to MoCo360. “Similar policies currently cover over 10,000,000 students across the country. We look forward to when the Supreme Court will confirm that such policies violate the rights of parents, the ones who best know their children and their needs.”
School board communication coordinator Christie Scott wrote Monday in an email to MoCo360 that the board is “pleased” the Supreme Court decided not to hear the challenge. “This decision ensures we can continue to provide a safe, welcoming learning environment where all students feel accepted,” she wrote.
MCPS did not immediately respond to MoCo360’s request for comment Monday afternoon.
The parents’ case was one of more than 60 rejected by justices for the court’s docket for the 2024-2025 term, SCOTUSblog.com reported Monday.
In August 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Grimm dismissed the parents’ lawsuit, saying the MCPS guidelines “carefully balance the interests of both the parents and students, encouraging parental input when the student consents, but avoiding it when the student expresses concern that parents would not be supportive, or that disclosing their gender identity to their parents may put them in harm’s way.”
The plaintiffs then appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. In August 2023, a panel of three judges dismissed the appeal in a 2-1 decision, citing a lack of standing.
In the August 2023 appeals decision, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, writing for the majority, asserted the plaintiffs’ claim lacked proof that the gender identity guidelines caused them any injury—an essential element in a civil case.
“The parents have not alleged that their children have gender support plans, are transgender or are even struggling with issues of gender identity. As a result, they have not alleged facts that the Montgomery County public schools have any information about their children that is currently being withheld or that there is a substantial risk information will be withheld in the future,” Quattlebaum wrote. “Thus, under the Constitution, they have not alleged the type of injury required to show standing.”
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Paul Niemeyer described his colleagues’ interpretation of the case as “unfairly narrow” and asserted that discussions of students’ gender identity belong squarely in the home, not at school.
“The issue of whether and how grade school and high school students choose to pursue gender transition is a family matter, not one to be addressed initially and exclusively by public schools without the knowledge and consent of parents,” Niemeyer wrote.
Claybrook told MoCo360 Monday that the Supreme Court is normally the last step for any case, and now “there really isn’t anything to be done at this point.”
However, Claybrook said that does not mean that the plaintiffs couldn’t sue the school system again. He also noted that the court’s denial to hear the case is not an affirmation of the lower court’s decision.
“They’re basically saying, ‘We’re just not going to make a decision about it one way or the other,’ ” Claybrook said.
