Alito Scolds Courts For Dodging Cases On Schools ‘Transing’ Kids
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito criticized lower courts for avoiding cases involving schools that allegedly support children’s gender transitions without parental knowledge or consent. This commentary followed the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear *Lee v. Poudre School District R-1*, a case where Colorado parents sued their school district for policies that allegedly encouraged student gender transitions and kept parents uninformed. The parents claimed these policies violated their 14th Amendment rights by undermining their parental authority. Although the Supreme court declined to take the case, Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, expressed concern that lower courts are hesitant to address the constitutional questions raised by such situations. He emphasized the growing national meaning of cases where schools interfere with parental rights on sensitive issues like gender identity.This stance comes after the Supreme Court previously ruled that parents can opt their children out of pro-LGBT material in schools, reinforcing parental rights in education.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito had some choice words for some lower courts on Tuesday over their apparent eagerness to “avoid” ruling on cases involving schools “transing” children without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
The comments came in an order released by the high court on Tuesday that listed which pending lower court cases it will and will not be taking up in its 2025-2026 term. Among the cases rejected by the justices was Lee v. Poudre School District R-1, which centers around a lawsuit brought by two sets of parents against the Colorado-based Poudre School District R-1.
According to CBS News, “The families challenged policies implemented by the [school district] which they say urge district employees not to disclose information about a students’ [so-called] gender identity, including to parents.”
“In one instance,” the outlet reported, “the [Lee family’s] daughter … was urged to attend a meeting of the Gender and Sexualities Alliance at her middle school,” during which “a substitute teacher in the school district spoke about gender identity and sexual orientation, and warned students that it may not be safe to tell their parents about the discussion, according to court papers.”
A second student reportedly “had a similar experience at after-school GSA meetings.” This student also “told her parents she felt unsafe about being in the same building as a teacher who encouraged her to attend the GSA meetings, according to court filings.”
Both sets of parents filed a lawsuit against the school district, alleging that officials unlawfully interfered with their decision-making role as parents and therefore violated their 14th Amendment rights. The legal challenge was dismissed by the district court, a decision that was later upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
As a result, plaintiffs petitioned SCOTUS to take up the case, arguing that “America’s long history of protecting parents’ legal authority in raising their children is being deliberately dismantled by school districts across the country that have enacted policies to replace parental authority with governmental authority.”
While the Supreme Court declined to take up the case in its Tuesday order, the decision prompted Alito to author a concurring opinion on the matter. Although the Bush appointee noted that he “concur[red] in the denial of certiorari because petitioners do not challenge the ground for the ruling below,” he took time to express his worries about what appears to be a lack of fortitude among lower court judges to take up and address matters involving schools “transitioning” children “without parental knowledge or consent.”
“I remain concerned that some federal courts are ‘tempt[ed]’ to avoid confronting a ‘particularly contentious constitutional questio[n]’: whether a school district violates parents’ fundamental rights ‘when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process,’” Alito wrote.
“Petitioners tell us that nearly 6,000 public schools have policies—as respondent allegedly does—that purposefully interfere with parents’ access to critical information about their children’s gender identity choices and school personnel’s involvement in and influence on those choices,” he added. “The troubling—and tragic—allegations in this case underscore the ‘great and growing national importance’ of the question that these parent petitioners present.”
Alito was joined in his opinion by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
The Bush appointee’s concurrence comes months after the Supreme Court sided with parents in a case involving a Maryland school district forcing pro-LGBT materials on students. As The Federalist’s Breccan Thies previously reported, in its 6-3 decision, the high court agreed that parents can “opt their children out of homosexual and ‘transgender’ propaganda in school, noting that a school district forcing young children to be confronted with the perverse sexual program violates parents’ religious liberty.”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
