Massachusetts parents (Stephen Foote & Marissa Silvestri) sued after their child was socially transitioned at school without their knowledge.
They argue this violated constitutional parental rights to direct upbringing, education, and healthcare decisions.
Lower courts dismissed the case, ruling that using preferred names/pronouns is not medical treatment and schools control curricular/administrative decisions.
Parents petitioned the Supreme Court, citing urgency and widespread adoption of “secret transition policies” in over 1,000 districts.
🏛️ Historical Precedents on Parental Rights
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923):Struck down ban on foreign language teaching; affirmed parental role in education.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925):Invalidated Oregon law requiring public schooling; emphasized parents’ liberty to direct education.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972):Allowed Amish parents to withdraw children from school for religious reasons.
Troxel v. Granville (2000):Limited state interference in parental custody/visitation decisions.
Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025):Court upheld parents’ right to opt children out of LGBTQ+ themed instruction on religious grounds.
🔑 Key Legal Tensions
Parental rights often grounded insubstantive due processunder the 14th Amendment.
Conservative justices (e.g., Clarence Thomas) skeptical of substantive due process, calling it an “oxymoron.”
Parents in Foote case argue for extending protections beyond religion to moral/scientific objections to gender ideology.
📌 What’s Next
Supreme Court will decide whether to hear Foote’s case.
Ludlow School Committee urges denial, claiming no formal policy exists.
Other similar cases (e.g., in Florida) are pending, meaning the Court will likely revisit the issue soon.
Regardless of outcome, parental rights in education remain amajor constitutional question.
