Federal Court Rules that Maryland School Can Continue to Hide Children's Transitions from Their Parents

The court ruled that the plaintiffs in the case didn't have standing

Photo byPawel CzerwinskionUnsplash

A Maryland school district can continue to keep student's gender transitions from their parents after a federal appeals court ruled the plaintiffs didn't have standing in the case because they did not allege their children were transgender, according to the Monday ruling. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit dismissed the case in a 2 to 1 ruling, which was brought by three parents of students at Montgomery County Public Schools over the district's "gender support plan." The guidelines for transgender-identifying students adopted by the Montgomery County Board of Education in 2020-2021, address a student's identified name, pronouns, athletics, extracurricular activities, locker rooms, bathrooms, "safe spaces, safe zones, and other safety supports." 

Plaintiffs in the case dubbed the guideline in question, the "Parental Preclusion Policy," which their lawyers with the National Legal Foundation argued were a violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Prior to contacting a student’s parent/guardian, the principal or identified staff member should speak with the student to ascertain the level of support the student either receives or anticipates receiving from home," the guidelines state.

U.S. Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum said the parents' opposition to the guidelines didn't give them standing in the case and rendered it a "policy disagreement" because they didn't allege their children had gender support plans of their own. 

"The parents have not alleged that their children have gender support plans, are transgender or are even struggling with issues of gender identity," the court's decision stated. "As a result, they have not alleged facts that the Montgomery County public schools have any information about their children that is currently being withheld or that there is a substantial risk information will be withheld in the future."

Even though the court said they lack the power to address parental objections to the guidelines, that "does not mean their objections are invalid" and "In fact, they may be quite persuasive," the decision stated.