Posted on 11/09/2025 6:30:28 AM PST by cuz1961
The case involves a middle school student in Florida. Parents allege school officials met privately with their 13-year-old daughter to discuss “gender identity” and created a “gender support plan” against their wishes and without informing them.
According to the lawsuit, staff were allowed to withhold information if a student requested confidentiality. Parents claim the school violated their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their child under the 14th Amendment.
Legal History
Florida district court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case.
Both courts applied the “shock-the-conscience” test – a standard of review that requires proof of school officials acting with the intent to harm in order to find wrongdoing – and held that the school’s actions did not meet that threshold.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned, “Defendants did not act with intent to injure. To the contrary, they sought to help the child. Under these circumstances, even if the Littlejohns felt that Defendants’ efforts to help their child were misguided or wrong, the mere fact that the school officials acted contrary to the Littlejohns’ wishes does not mean that their conduct ‘shocks the conscience’ in a constitutional sense.”
In September, the Littlejohns filed their petition with the Supreme Court to review the decision. The Court has scheduled a conference to discuss the case for Friday, Nov. 7.
Constitutional Question
Here’s what at stake: if school officials can infringe on fundamental rights of parents protected in the U.S. Constitution.
The Littejohns argue that parental rights are fundamental and require the Court to apply the highest level of review, strict scrutiny, as it would with other core constitutional rights.
Impact
A ruling in favor of the Littlejohns could solidify constitutional protections for parental rights nationwide on the growing issue of school officials transitioning students without parental involvement.
If the Court decides to take the case this term, there is good reason to believe that the Court would protect parental rights.
As previously reported by the Daily Citizen, the Supreme Court decided not to take a similar Colorado parental rights case. In a short statement, Justice Samuel Alito made it clear that the case raised very serious questions about parental rights.
“The troubling – and tragic – allegations in this case underscore the ‘great and growing national importance’ of the question that these parent petitioners present.”
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned, “Defendants did not act with intent to injure. To the contrary, they sought to help the child. ... “
The legal expression in loco parentis has never been interpreted to mean that a school can act in derogation of parental rights and against the wishes of a parent in sexing their child.
Yes, this does “shock the conscience”.
In other words, unrelated adults — “educators” mostly, as they’re styled nowadays — should be allowed to guide minors into lives of sexual perversion and confusion without the parents’ knowledge. What could possibly go wrong? How could anyone with the properly fashionable opinions disagree?
Pedophile school officials making all the rules is a no go
I do not have children, but I am afraid that if school personnel did that to my kid I would shoot them. Perhaps I would have the restraint to only maim them, but they would suffer for their actions. There is no such thing as transgender.
Homeschool bump.
Imho no responsible parent gambles with the education of their kids.
You could get ten excellent public school teachers in a row and then one pervert.
That would be a no go for me.
In short, for compelling political reasons, the Leon County School Board will make the strongest case possible for the authority of public school systems against parental rights. On the whole, the Supreme Court prefers to hear and decide controversies that address significant issues with sharp disagreements between the opposing sides. That makes this particular case a good choice for the Court to take up.
If the concept of “statutory rape” withstands legal scrutiny, then it inherently means children cannot make adult decisions. The same applies here... and if that’s true, adult decisions must be the purview of the parents. Education (if you even buy that public education is a vital governmental function) must be only about education... NOT about life decisions.
If educators are allowed to subvert parents, then it’s a short line to draw in making EVERY child a ward of the state... where parents have no rights whatsoever.
If anything, in loco parentis, means executing the will of the patent upon the parents temporary absence, such as during the school day. It has never meant the school IS the parent or can overrule the parents.
Yes, it does.
Who where the 11th Circuit judges?
Anyone who trusts the government to indoctrinate their children instead of homeschooling them needs to reassess their life and make a plan to do whatever is necessary to keep the souls entrusted to them safe…cost what it may.
Big time!
That’s the truth.
I couldn’t agree more.
Exactly.
“Educators” have twisted it to mean, “We can do anything the parents could do from 8 am to 3 pm.”
However, they will quickly disclaim any responsibility for their actions: “We’re just teachers, you are the parents.”
As a postscript, I live in a conservative school district. Parents might actually tar & feather any school officials who tried something like this, it is hard to believe it flies anywhere else but, liberals.
In my world the “school officials” would be in prison for the rest of their lives for child abuse.
The article leaves out something very important (and good): the defendants in this case didn’t file a brief in opposition to the request by plaintiffs for a hearing before the Supreme Court. On October 28 the Supreme Court asked them to do so. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-259.html
That means the Court is interested enough in granting the petition that it wants the defendants to explain why the petition should NOT be granted. Doesn’t happen every day. The response isn’t due until November 28, so it won’t get put on the list for evaluation by the Justices until after that. So we won’t hear for a while. But it’s a good sign that the Court is interested.
“The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned, “Defendants did not act with intent to injure. To the contrary, they sought to help the child. Under these circumstances, even if the Littlejohns felt that Defendants’ efforts to help their child were misguided or wrong, the mere fact that the school officials acted contrary to the Littlejohns’ wishes does not mean that their conduct ‘shocks the conscience’ in a constitutional sense.”
Long ago “authorities” with no intent to harm entered into a program of sterilizing “imbeciles” so they would not burden the public with hordes of imbecilic, dependent, or even criminal, offspring. Subsequently, forced sterilization has been condemned as grossly injurious and based on bad “science” (but now we’re supposed to blindly “trust the science”).
Since children subjected to “gender-affirming care” tend to end up as sterilized adults, it shocks the hell out of my conscience for children to be on a school-administered sterilization track without their parents’ knowledge or informed consent.
“School officials” who perpetrate this type of outrage should be fired, sued, prosecuted, and imprisoned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.