{"id":10578,"date":"2025-03-15T15:35:41","date_gmt":"2025-03-15T19:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/miami\/?p=10578"},"modified":"2025-03-15T15:35:41","modified_gmt":"2025-03-15T19:35:41","slug":"court-rules-against-florida-parents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/miami\/2025\/03\/15\/court-rules-against-florida-parents\/","title":{"rendered":"Court rules against Florida parents"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction to the Case<\/h2>\n

TALLAHASSEE \u2014 Concluding that school officials\u2019 actions did not \u201cshock the conscience,\u201d a divided federal appeals court this week ruled against a couple who sued the Leon County school system in a dispute stemming from their child wanting to express a gender identity and use pronouns the parents didn\u2019t support.<\/p>\n

Background of the Dispute<\/h2>\n

A sharply divided panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in 2021 by January and Jeffrey Littlejohn against the Leon County School Board, Superintendent Rocky Hanna and other school officials. The case attracted national attention amid an ongoing battle about transgender people, schools and sports teams. First Lady Melania Trump invited January Littlejohn to join her at President Donald Trump\u2019s address to the Congress last week. The White House claimed the Leon County school district \u201cdrove a wedge between January\u2019s daughter and her parents\u201d by devising a \u201ccovert plan\u201d to transition her daughter, charges the district has denied.<\/p>\n

Details of the Case<\/h2>\n

Before the 2020-2021 school year, the Littlejohns\u2019 child, then a 13-year-old student at Deerlake Middle School, asked to go by a male name, \u201cJ,\u201d and use they and them pronouns, according to Wednesday\u2019s main opinion written by Judge Robin Rosenbaum. The child was identified as a girl at birth, and the Littlejohns did not allow the name and pronoun changes, though they said the child could use J as a \u201cnickname\u201d at school. The child told a school counselor about wanting to use the name J and the they and them pronouns, Rosenbaum wrote. Under a school system policy guide at the time, the parents were not informed of the social transition at school. That ultimately led to the lawsuit.<\/p>\n

Legal Proceedings<\/h2>\n

\u201cThe Littlejohns allege that the board and its officials violated their parental due-process rights when the officials met with and permitted the Littlejohns\u2019 13-year-old child to express the child\u2019s gender identity at school,\u201d Rosenbaum wrote. \u201cIn compliance with the board\u2019s guidelines at the time, school officials developed a gender identity-related \u201cStudent Support Plan\u201d for and with the child without the Littlejohns\u2019 involvement and contrary to the Littlejohns\u2019 wishes.\u201d But the appeals court said the case involved a challenge to government executive actions and, as a result, the legal test under court precedents was whether school officials\u2019 actions \u201cshocked the conscience.\u201d Rosenbaum concluded that the actions did not rise to that level.<\/p>\n

Court Ruling<\/h2>\n

\u201cThe child was not physically harmed, much less permanently so,\u201d Rosenbaum wrote, citing a series of legal precedents. \u201cDefendants did not remove the Littlejohns\u2019 child from their custody. And defendants did not force the child to attend a Student Support Plan meeting, to not invite the Littlejohns to that meeting, or to socially transition at school. In fact, defendants did not force the Littlejohns\u2019 child to do anything at all. And perhaps most importantly, 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\u2019 efforts to help their child were misguided or wrong, the mere fact that the school officials acted contrary to the Littlejohns\u2019 wishes does not mean that their conduct \u2018shocks the conscience\u2019 in a constitutional sense.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reactions to the Ruling<\/h2>\n

Judge Kevin Newsom wrote a concurring opinion but was sharply critical of due-process precedents \u2014 and the school system. \u201cI think the defendants\u2019 conduct here \u2014 in essence, hiding from the Littlejohns the fact that their 13-year-old daughter had expressed a desire to identify as a boy at school \u2014 was shameful,\u201d Newsom wrote. \u201cIf I were a legislator, I\u2019d vote to change the policy that enabled the defendants\u2019 efforts to keep the Littlejohns in the dark. But \u2014 and it\u2019s a big but \u2014 judges aren\u2019t just politicians in robes, and they don\u2019t (or certainly shouldn\u2019t) just vote their personal preferences. The question for me, therefore, isn\u2019t whether the defendants\u2019 conduct was shameful, but rather whether it was unconstitutional.\u201d But Judge Gerald Tjoflat dissented, focusing, in part, on parental rights and saying the shock-the-conscience legal test should not apply to the case. He wrote that the Littlejohns are \u201centitled to a day in court on the merits of their claims that the defendant executives violated their parental rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

Updates and Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Tjoflat also wrote that the question is, \u201cDoes the Constitution still protect parents\u2019 fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children when government actors intrude without their knowledge or consent? The majority says it does not. It reaches this conclusion by applying an illogical, unauthorized, and atextual \u2018shocks-the-conscience\u2019 standard that denies the Littlejohns the ability to vindicate their fundamental right to raise their child.\u201d Rosenbaum\u2019s opinion said the Leon County system in 2022 updated its policy guide about handling LGBTQ issues. <\/p>\n

Originally Published: March 14, 2025 at 2:37 PM EDT<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

The ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks a significant development in the ongoing debate about the rights of transgender students and the role of schools in supporting them. While the decision may be seen as a setback for the Littlejohns and other parents who oppose the accommodation of gender identity in schools, it also highlights the complexities and challenges involved in balancing the rights of all students with the concerns of parents.<\/p>\n

FAQs<\/h2>\n