California implemented policies requiring school districts to limit notifying parents when students raised gender-related concerns. After these rules were challenged in court, critics claimed the state moved similar guidance into teacher training materials that were not initially disclosed during the legal process.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined California’s argument that the policy struck an appropriate balance between parental rights and student welfare. Instead, the justices granted an emergency application allowing a permanent injunction blocking the policy to remain in place while the case continues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
At the same time, a similar dispute is unfolding in Maine. The Great Salt Bay School Board is defending its actions in a lawsuit brought by parent Amber Lavigne. She is asking the Supreme Court to review a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed her case.
The appeals court ruled that there were plausible alternative explanations for the student’s social transition and said the claims lacked sufficient evidence to show the existence of an unwritten policy. Lavigne alleges school staff began addressing her daughter as male without informing her and that a social worker provided chest binders. She argues this contradicts the district’s official parental involvement policy.
Her legal team maintains the key issue is whether schools can be held liable for following unconstitutional practices, even if those policies are not formally written.
