SCOTUS Declines Parental Rights Dispute Involving School Hiding Daughter’s Transition

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a major parental rights case this week, leaving in place a lower court ruling that rejected a Massachusetts family’s challenge to a public school’s handling of their child’s social gender transition without parental knowledge or consent.

The case asked whether public school officials violate the constitutional rights of parents when they facilitate a child’s social gender change at school while keeping that information from the child’s family.

The justices turned away the appeal from Massachusetts parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri, who sued their child’s school district in Ludlow, Massachusetts. By declining the case, the high court allowed the lower court ruling against the parents to stand.

But the broader legal battle is far from over. A similar case brought by parents in Florida is still awaiting potential action by the Supreme Court, meaning the justices may soon have another opportunity to weigh in on one of the most important cultural and constitutional fights in American education.

The court previously declined in October to hear a related case brought by two families in Colorado. At the time, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, warned that the issue of parental rights is one of “great and growing national importance.”

In March, the Supreme Court also blocked a California law that would have prevented school districts from requiring teachers to notify parents when a child asks to use different pronouns, while litigation continues on the court’s emergency docket.

Across the country, lawsuits have been piling up over the same basic question: do parents have the right to know when schools become involved in deeply personal matters affecting a child’s identity, mental health, and daily life?

The Massachusetts case involved Foote and Silvestri’s middle school-age child, identified in court filings as B.F., who attended a public school in Ludlow.

The parents alleged that the school was “pushing beliefs concerning gender ideology behind the parents’ backs and encouraging their children to question their own identity.”

According to court filings, B.F. began questioning her gender identity and started seeing a therapist. The parents said they informed the school that they intended to seek professional help for their child.

Silvestri also directed school officials not to hold private conversations with her child about mental health issues so the family could address the matter “as a family and with the appropriate professionals.”

Foote and Silvestri claimed the Ludlow Education Committee, the town’s education board, ignored their request and instead began socially transitioning B.F. without their knowledge.

Teachers started using a different name and alternative pronouns for the student at school, while a school counselor indicated that B.F. could choose which restroom to use.

Lawyers for the school argued that officials acted after the student emailed school personnel and stated, “I am genderqueer,” while requesting that teachers use a new name and “any pronouns (other than it/its).”

The parents, however, maintained that school officials encouraged and advanced the changes.

Foote and Silvestri argued that Ludlow’s school system had an implicit policy allowing children to socially transition at school without parental knowledge or consent.

They also claimed the protocol required staff to use a child’s legal name and sex-based pronouns when communicating with parents, while using the student’s preferred name and pronouns at school.

In 2022, the parents filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Ludlow School Committee and school officials. They argued that the district violated their right to direct the upbringing and education of their child and their right to make medical and mental health decisions for her.

A federal district court dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit later upheld that decision.

The 1st Circuit ruled that parents cannot use the Constitution’s Due Process Clause to “create a preferred educational experience for their child in public school.”

“The measures the Parents cite … all involve decisions by Ludlow’s staff about how to reasonably meet diverse student needs within the school setting,” the unanimous three-judge panel wrote in its February 2025 decision. “The Supreme Court has never suggested that parents have the right to control a school’s curricular or administrative decisions.”

In their Supreme Court appeal, lawyers for Foote and Silvestri cited a long line of rulings dating back to the 1920s recognizing that parents have a constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children.

They also warned that more than 1,000 school districts have adopted policies under which parents are not informed about gender identity matters involving their own children. The lawyers urged the Supreme Court to clarify that nonreligious parents “do not relinquish their parental rights when they enroll their child in a public school.”

For conservatives, the court’s refusal to take the case is a disappointing pause in a fight that continues to grow nationwide. Many parents believe public schools have no right to conceal major identity-related changes from families, especially when those changes touch on mental health, counseling, bathrooms, names, and pronouns.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not settle the constitutional question. It simply leaves the 1st Circuit’s ruling in place for now.

But the issue is not going away. With similar lawsuits still moving through the courts, the justices may soon be forced to confront the central question directly: whether public schools serve parents and families, or whether they can make life-changing decisions involving children behind closed doors.