{"id":248518,"date":"2026-04-27T17:53:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T17:53:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/248518\/"},"modified":"2026-04-27T17:53:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T17:53:08","slug":"parents-lose-chance-to-challenge-florida-schools-gender-identity-policy-at-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/248518\/","title":{"rendered":"Parents lose chance to challenge Florida school’s gender-identity policy at Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Littlejohns’ lawsuit became a cause c\u00e9l\u00e8bre for Republicans opposed to gender-affirming policies in schools.<\/p>\n

(CN) \u2014 The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide if a Florida school district violated the civil rights of a transgender student\u2019s parents by developing a gender transition plan for the child without their knowledge.<\/p>\n

The high court denied<\/a>the petition for certiorari<\/a> in Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County without comment. The child\u2019s parents, January and Jeffrey Littlejohn, filed the appeal, arguing the Leon County School Board in Tallahassee violated their rights by hiding their child\u2019s transition plan from them.<\/p>\n

An 11th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 against the parents last March. U.S. Circuit Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote in the majority\u2019s opinion<\/a> that the district\u2019s actions did not \u201cshock the conscience.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rosenbaum said the child was not physically harmed or forced to participate in the transition plan. Most importantly, the district did not act with intent to injure the child, the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo the contrary, they sought to help the child,\u201d Rosenbaum wrote. \u201cUnder these circumstances, even if the Littlejohns felt that defendants\u2019 efforts to help their child were misguided or wrong, the mere fact that the school officials acted contrary to the Littlejohns\u2019 wishes does not mean that their conduct \u2018shocks the conscience\u2019 in a constitutional sense.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Littlejohns\u2019 child was assigned female at birth but asked to go by they\/them pronouns and a new name, J., during middle school. The Littlejohns allowed the child to use the \u201cnickname\u201d at school but they told the child\u2019s teacher they did not support the use of new pronouns.<\/p>\n

After the Littlejohns\u2019 child told a counselor they wished to socially transition at school, the counselor and other staff developed a student support plan with the child. The Littlejohns were not told about the plan or invited to a meeting to discuss it.<\/p>\n

The Littlejohns contacted the school and district administrators after they learned about the plan. School staff told the parents they were not required to provide parental notification since it might endanger the child.<\/p>\n

The Littlejohns sued the Leon County School Board and its administrators in 2021 for violating their parental-due-process and familial-privacy rights. U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker, an Obama appointee, dismissed the suit<\/a> the following year for failing to \u201cshock the conscience,\u201d but the case became a cause c\u00e9l\u00e8bre for Republicans opposed to gender-affirming school policies.<\/p>\n

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said he wanted to protect parents<\/a> like the Littlejohns when he signed into law a 2022 bill stifling public school discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.<\/p>\n

The 11th Circuit panel rejected the Littlejohns\u2019 appeal, but the judges disagreed on the merits of the substantive-due-process analysis used to decide the case.<\/p>\n

U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in a concurring opinion that while the school administrator\u2019s actions were \u201cshameful,\u201d they were not unconstitutional. But Newsom argued substantive due process was an \u201cincoherent\u201d test that allowed judges to \u201cfoist their policy preferences on society.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSubstantive due process isn\u2019t worth the candle,\u201d Newsom wrote. \u201cIt\u2019s doing more harm than good and we \u2014 by which I suppose I really mean my bosses at the Supreme Court \u2014 should ditch it,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n

Rosenbaum countered in a separate opinion that judicial activism is not a problem if the analysis is performed properly and faithfully.<\/p>\n

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat, a Gerald Ford appointee, argued in dissent that the shocks-the-conscience standard was legal dicta that had morphed into binding authority without scrutiny, undermining Congress\u2019s intent in enacting Section 1983.<\/p>\n

\u201cToday\u2019s decision ignores bedrock separation-of-powers principles, waters down fundamental rights, and flies in the face of our prior panel precedent rule,\u201d Tjoflat wrote. \u201cIt is as wrong as it is ominous for the future of fundamental rights in the 11th Circuit.\u201d<\/p>\n


\nFollow @SteveGarrisonPC<\/a>Subscribe to our free newsletters<\/p>\n

Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing
\ntrials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world,
\nwhile the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood,
\nsports, Big Tech and the arts.<\/p>\n