Supreme Court rejects two LGBTQ+-related appeals

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday (October 14) that it would not take up an appeal from four Colorado parents seeking to challenge the right of a public school district to provide confidential support to middle school students who are or might be LGBTQ+. It also denied review of a lower court dismissal of a lawsuit against the dating app Grindr.

The Colorado case started when two sets of parents became aware that their 12-year-old middle school children had attended an after-school group called Genders and Sexualities Alliance. Following one meeting, one of the students announced plans to transition; following two meetings, the other student began suffering emotional distress and attempted suicide. The parents sued the school district, saying the school should have alerted them that their students were questioning their sexual orientation or gender and had attended the group meeting. The parents said the school's failure to do so violated the parents' "fundamental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their children."

The school district argued that the parents' rights did not include "curriculum or extracurricular activities offered by the school." It also argued that the school district has a legitimate interest in "providing a safe and supportive environment for all its students, including those who are transgender or gender nonconforming."

A federal district court judge (a Biden appointee) dismissed the lawsuit, holding that the school district's policy of providing gender support plans to transgender or gender non-conforming students is rationally related to the school's stated interests. The parents appealed to the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel (all Obama appointees) affirmed the district court ruling.

The parents appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court; but, on October 14, the high court declined to accept the appeal. It takes four justices to vote yes in order for the Supreme Court to take an appeal. The Lee v. Poudre appeal had zero; but, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch did sign onto a one-paragraph statement to say they "remain concerned that some federal courts are "tempt[ed]" to avoid confronting a 'particularly contentious constitutional questio[n]": whether a school district violates parents' fundamental rights "when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process."

Last December, it was Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh objecting to the Supreme Court's decision not to hear a similar appeal. That case was Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire School District, from Wisconsin. The district court dismissed the parent association's lawsuit, noting that none of the parents involved in the case had a child who was transgender or gender-nonconforming. As such, the parents did not have standing to press the lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed. The parents group then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court apparently voted 6 to 3 not to take the appeal, but Justices Thomas, Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh begged to differ. Kavanaugh simply noted he would have granted the appeal. Thomas and Alito stated, "This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents' "fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of " their children.

Thomas and Alito have two more appeals for which they could potentially get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on board for the necessary four votes: one from Massachusetts and one from Florida.

In the Massachusetts case, Foote v. Ludlow Schools, the parents of an 11-year-old middle school student said the public schools in Ludlow "secretly facilitated" their daughter's "social gender transition" despite the parents telling the school not to allow it. The parents did not claim a religious objection to their child transitioning; they said they have a moral objection and that they believe "gender transition harms their children."

"The Court should grant the petition and make clear that parents' fundamental rights do not depend on whether they are religious," said the parents' petition, filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

The Florida case, Littlejohn v. Florida, is very similar to Foote and Lee: The parents of a 13-year-old middle school student were aware their daughter was questioning her gender and had her in therapy. They told school officials they did not want their daughter "socially transitioning" at school. School officials provided support for the student's transitioning, including use of a male name and pronouns, allowing her to use male bathrooms. And the parents sued. They lost at the district and appeals court levels and have now appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will likely decide in the near future whether to take either, both, or neither of the Foote and Littlejohn cases.

The second LGBTQ+-related appeal denied Tuesday, Doe v. Grindr, was pressed by "John Doe," who says the dating app Grindr, popular with men, allowed him on the app when he was only 15. He sued the app for $66 million, saying Grindr directed men to him who raped him (Three have been convicted; a fourth has eluded arrest.)

The legal questions in the appeal sought to clarify whether apps, such as Grindr, should be covered by a section of the 1934 Communication Decency Act (Section 230) that Congress added in 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user" of an app can be held liable for "any information provided by another" person posting content on the app. The district court for Central California and the Ninth Circuit ruled against Doe, citing Section 230. The Supreme Court denied Doe's petition, without comment.

© 2025 Keen News Service. All rights reserved.