Supreme Court declines to hear parents' appeal against Fla. school district over socially transitioning child
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by parents suing a Florida school district that socially transitioned their daughter without their knowledge or consent.
In an orders list released Monday morning, the Supreme Court denied without comment a request to hear oral arguments in the case of Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County.
The high court’s decision not to grant certiorari allows a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuitto stand.
January Littlejohn, one of the plaintiffs, sent The Christian Post an emailed statement in response saying that although "we are disappointed the Court declined to hear our case, we trust in God’s timing and remain steadfast in our convictions."
"Our case helped shine a national light on serious parental rights violations, and we are grateful that Florida took swift legislative steps to better protect families," read the statement. "Unfortunately, families across the country are still being harmed by policies that allow the secret social transition of children in schools."
"With thousands of school districts affected, this remains a national issue. Our work is far from over—we will continue using our experience to advocate for families and for policies that respect the fundamental role of parents as the primary decision-makers in their children’s lives."
In 2020, the Littlejohns’ then-13-year-old daughter met with school officials regarding her gender confusion. School officials did not notify her parents or obtain their consent before socially transitioning her by recognizing her as a boy while at school. After learning about the school’s actions, the parents filed a lawsuit in October 2021.
January Littlejohn, the child's mother, told The Christian Post in an earlier interview that she believed officials were “colluding with my daughter to deceive us so that we would never have known she was going by an alternate name.”
Littlejohn also told CP in 2021 that she was aware of other parents in Leon County who had found themselves in similar situations. She said they “are really scared to speak out or they don’t feel like they can speak out because it would jeopardize the very fragile relationship they have with their child who’s experiencing distress related to their gender.”
“It’s the first step toward medical transitioning,” she said. “Which is why it is so imperative that parents be included [in] any discussion with their child that could impact the short-term and long-term mental and physical well-being of their child, whether it’s this issue or any issue.”
A district court ruled against the parents, concluding, in part, that their arguments were nullified by the 2022 release of new standards for students exhibiting gender confusion. The lower court also ruled that school officials had qualified immunity for their actions.
In March of last year, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit ruled 2-1 against the Littlejohns, with Circuit Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee, authoring the majority opinion.
Rosenbaum ruled that the school officials’ actions did not “shock the conscience,” meaning they did not engage in any activity that overtly harmed the student or her parents.
“Defendants did not remove the Littlejohns’ child from their custody,” Rosenbaum wrote. “Defendants did not force the Littlejohns’ child to do anything at all.”
“The child was not physically harmed, much less permanently so. … And perhaps most importantly, Defendants did not act with intent to injure. To the contrary, they sought to help the child.”
Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, a 96-year-old Ford appointee, authored a dissenting opinion, noting that the “Supreme Court has continued to affirm the proposition that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children.”
“Today’s decision ignores bedrock separation of powers principles, waters down fundamental rights, and flies in the face of our prior panel precedent rule,” he wrote. “It is as wrong as it is ominous for the future of fundamental rights in the Eleventh Circuit.”
