The U.S. Supreme Court has once again declined to wade into the turbulent waters of parental rights and gender identity in public schools, rejecting on October 14, 2025, a high-profile appeal from two Colorado families who alleged their constitutional rights were violated when their children attended school-sponsored club meetings on gender identity and sexuality. The decision marks the third time in the past year the Court has sidestepped cases raising similar questions, sparking both frustration and concern among parents, educators, and legal observers nationwide.
At the heart of the case, Lee v. Poudre School District R-1, are two families—Jonathan and Erin Lee, and Nicolas and Linnaea Jurich—who say school officials in the Poudre School District in Wellington, Colorado, excluded them from critical discussions about their children’s gender identity. According to court filings, the parents allege that school employees actively discouraged students from sharing details of Gender and Sexualities Alliance (GSA) club meetings with their families, and in some instances, directed staff to use students’ preferred names and pronouns at school, but not with parents at home.
One particularly wrenching account involves the Lees’ daughter, referred to in court papers as C.L. She was reportedly encouraged by a substitute teacher to attend a GSA meeting, during which gender identity and sexual orientation were discussed. The teacher, according to the family, warned students that it might not be safe to share the meeting’s content with their parents. During the meeting, C.L. announced she was transgender, later relaying this to her parents, who subsequently withdrew her from the public school system and enrolled her in a private institution. The principal, when contacted by the Lees, explained that the meetings were confidential to ensure a "safe space for open conversation," as reported by CBS News.
A similar story unfolded with the Jurichs’ daughter, H.J., who also attended GSA meetings and received warnings about sharing information with her parents. After expressing discomfort about remaining in the same building as the teacher who encouraged her participation, H.J. was disenrolled from the school at the start of eighth grade, according to court documents.
The parents filed suit against the Poudre School District, arguing that their 14th Amendment rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children had been violated. They sought monetary damages to cover the cost of private schooling, medical expenses, counseling, and other related costs. However, both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled against them, with the appellate court finding no official district policy of secrecy or evidence that the district had caused the alleged injury. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves those lower court rulings in place.
In their petition to the Supreme Court, the families’ lawyers warned that the lower courts’ decisions would allow school districts to "continue surreptitiously wresting decision-making authority from fit parents unawares and instead vesting that authority in school officials." They argued, "America's long history of protecting parents' legal authority in raising their children is being deliberately dismantled by school districts across the country that have enacted policies to replace parental authority with governmental authority. These policies actively deprive parents of the very information they need to exercise their legal rights and moral obligations to act in their children's best interests."
The school district countered that the parents were seeking an "advisory opinion"—something outside the jurisdiction of federal courts—and argued that this was not the right case for the Supreme Court to consider whether school employees’ actions regarding gender identity disclosure implicate a fundamental right. In their brief, the district said, "Even if this court is interested in the parents’ arguments, this is the wrong case to consider whether public school employees’ alleged discouraged disclosure regarding gender identity and expression implicates a fundamental right."
While the Supreme Court as a whole remained silent on the merits, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, issued a separate statement expressing deep unease over the judiciary’s reluctance to tackle the constitutional questions at play. Alito wrote, "Petitioners tell us that nearly 6,000 public schools have policies—as respondent allegedly does—that purposefully interfere with parents’ access to critical information about their children’s gender-identity choices and school personnel’s involvement in and influence on those choices." He added, "The troubling—and tragic—allegations in this case underscore the 'great and growing national importance' of the question that these parent petitioners present." According to Education Week, Alito further noted his agreement with the Court’s decision to deny review for procedural reasons but warned that lower courts seemed "tempted to avoid confronting a particularly contentious constitutional question."
This case is not an isolated one. The Supreme Court has turned away similar appeals from Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in the past year, and has another pending from parents near Fort Collins, Colorado, who allege their school district secretly facilitated their child’s gender transition. In addition, the Court has agreed to hear two cases this term involving state laws that bar transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ school sports, underscoring the growing legal and political stakes around gender identity in schools.
The debate over parental rights and student privacy has become a flashpoint in education policy nationwide, with advocates on both sides voicing passionate arguments. Supporters of policies like those in Poudre School District argue that confidentiality is essential to protect vulnerable students, particularly those who may face hostility or even danger at home if their gender identity is disclosed. Critics, however, contend that such policies undermine the foundational role of parents in guiding their children’s upbringing and erode trust within families.
Beyond the gender identity cases, the Supreme Court’s October 14 order list included denials of review in several other notable disputes. Among them was the high-profile defamation case involving Alex Jones, the conservative media figure who was ordered to pay $1.4 billion to the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting after he alleged the massacre was staged. The Court declined to hear Jones’s appeal without comment. The justices also refused to take up the appeal of an Arizona mother who claimed her First Amendment rights were violated when she was barred from her children’s school premises after a dispute with the principal, with lower courts finding the principal had qualified immunity.
As the Supreme Court continues to turn away cases on parental rights and gender identity in schools, legal experts and advocacy groups on all sides are left waiting for a definitive ruling. For now, the issue remains unresolved at the highest level, leaving school districts, parents, and students navigating a patchwork of policies and precedents that can vary dramatically from one community to the next.
With more cases already in the pipeline and the Court’s own justices signaling the urgency of the questions involved, it seems only a matter of time before the Supreme Court is compelled to address the complex intersection of parental authority, student privacy, and gender identity in America’s schools.
