Trial News

The First Circuit kept in place a public school policy that requires a child’s consent before the school informs their parents of a request to use a different name or pronouns at school. (Foote v. Ludlow Sch. Comm., 128 F.4th 336 (1st Cir. 2025).)

In 2012, Massachusetts’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) issued guidance on how to handle gender identity discrimination in public schools. Under state law, gender identity is based on a person’s identity, appearance, or behavior—not their sex assigned at birth. DESE’s guidance made policy recommendations, including encouraging teachers to refer to students by their preferred names and pronouns at the student’s request.

Parents of a middle school student at Ludlow Public Schools claimed that after the school librarian encouraged students to include their pronouns for a video project, their child began receiving LGBTQ+ content recommendations on their school computer. When a teacher alerted the parents that the student was displaying signs of depression and same-sex attraction, the parents asked the school to refrain from discussing sexuality and gender identity topics with the student.

Later, the student informed Ludlow faculty that they identified as genderqueer and requested to go by a different name at school. Ludlow staff complied with the student’s request and did not alert the parents. After this declaration, the parents alleged multiple instances where staff continued to facilitate discussions on gender identity with their child, including by offering books to the student on gender identity and encouraging the student to use the bathroom of their choice. The parents sued the school and others, alleging Ludlow’s policy restricted their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right to make decisions concerning their child’s upbringing. The lower court dismissed the lawsuit.

Affirming, the First Circuit noted that although parents do have a fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing, the parents here must demonstrate that the school district restricted that right. The plaintiffs claimed that the school engaged in “social transitioning” by honoring the student’s name change and pronouns, which the parents identified as a medical treatment. While Supreme Court precedent holds that parents do have the right to direct their child’s medical treatment, the court found that “social transitioning” is not a recognized medical practice, so this did not restrict the parents’ rights.

The court noted that parents cannot dictate a public school’s “curricular or administrative decisions” and cited a prior case where it held that parents “do not have a constitutional right to ‘direct how a public school teaches their child.’” Offering a child who has already expressed gender identity questions a book on LGBTQ+ themes, the court reasoned, is no different than offering a child a book on a certain occupation they’ve expressed an interest in.

Additionally, the parents’ assertion that not knowing about their child’s gender identity at school makes parenting more challenging is not a constitutional violation, the court said, noting that parents should take an active interest in their children’s lives by being observant and asking questions about these topics.

Finally, the court determined that the policy passes rational basis review, citing case law holding that state actors have a compelling interest in protecting minors’ physical and psychological well-being. The LGBTQ+ population is already a vulnerable population, the court said, so the school has a vested interest in creating a safe space for these students.

“The First Circuit’s decision is important, particularly given the current administration’s wide-ranging attacks on transgender students and school curriculums,” said Adele Kimmel, director of the Students’ Civil Rights Project at Public Justice. “As the court recognizes, a school’s decision to honor a student’s choices about which pronouns or bathrooms to use doesn’t violate parents’ constitutional rights.”