California required school districts to adopt policies that prevented parents from being notified when students expressed gender-related concerns. After the policy was challenged in court, critics alleged the state shifted guidance into teacher training materials that were not initially disclosed during litigation.
The Supreme Court of the United States rejected California’s argument that the policy appropriately balanced parental rights with student welfare. The court granted an emergency application allowing a permanent injunction blocking the policy to remain in place while the case continues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Just the News reported on Friday.
A separate dispute is now developing in Maine. The Great Salt Bay School Board is defending its practices in a lawsuit brought by parent Amber Lavigne, who has asked the Supreme Court to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that dismissed her lawsuit, the outlet reported.
The appeals court concluded that there were “obvious alternative explanations” for the social transition of Lavigne’s 13-year-old daughter and found insufficient evidence that the school district was operating under an unwritten policy requiring such actions. The court said the allegations were too vague to proceed.
Lavigne alleges that school staff began addressing her daughter as a male without informing her and that a school social worker provided chest binders intended to flatten the student’s breasts. She argues those actions show the district’s official parental involvement policy was not being followed, said the outlet.
Her attorneys with the Goldwater Institute filed a reply brief asserting that the key issue is whether a school board can be held liable for following an unconstitutional policy, regardless of whether that policy is formally written.
Nineteen states, led by South Carolina, along with a conservative policy group and a medical freedom advocacy organization, have filed briefs supporting Lavigne’s petition. The case was first presented to the Supreme Court on Feb. 20, and the justices have not yet taken action.
19 states agree. It's time for the Supreme Court to affirm parental rights.
Here's the Court's chance. https://t.co/EJBhkxVaBV
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) March 6, 2026
The 1st Circuit made “plausibility pleading” into a “probability requirement,” which is a violation of the SCOTUS precedent Twombly, a habitual problem that is seen in lower courts which has produced an “entrenched circuit split,” says the Manhattan Institute’s friend-of-the-court brief.
The improper classification then forces plaintiffs across “a wide range of constitutional issues” – free speech, economic freedom, property rights and racial discrimination among them – to “negate lawful explanations” before any legal discovery takes place. It then “invites courts to weigh competing inferences at the pleading stage,” which effectively gives the advantage to defendants, the brief also states.
It will be difficult to review the “substantive question of constitutionally guaranteed parental rights” without first addressing the difference on the standards of pleading, the institute argued further.
“The question presented is exceptionally important to the States,” as so-called gender secrecy policies now cover more than 12 million students in 38 states by Defending Education’s estimate, says the GOP attorneys general brief.
However, the appeals court, which only got its first Republican-nominated judge in November, “avoided answering the important constitutional question presented here,” the AGs said.
Their states need “clarity on this question so that legislatures, state boards of education, and local school districts can conform policies to federal law,” the brief argues. “Persistent avoidance by lower courts leaves States without binding guidance while disputes proliferate.”
America’s Frontline Doctors, a group that became known for its early opposition to COVID-19 orthodoxy, argued in a brief of its own in the case: “Desistance statistics and the weight of research show that the parental opinions in this case are most likely correct, and the school’s approach is medically contraindicated. This is about saving lives.”
