A federal appeals court in Richmond ruling struck down a lawsuit on Monday that challenged Montgomery County Public Schools’ gender identity guidelines, ruling that the case lacks legal standing.
The parents of two MCPS students filed the lawsuit in 2020, alleging that the school district’s gender identity guidelines, which advise staff not to disclose a student’s gender to their parents without permission, violate federal laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Parents argued that the school system’s gender identity guidelines violate their constitutional rights to “direct the care, custody, education, and control of their minor children,” according to court records.
In August 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Grimm dismissed the case, saying the MCPS guidelines “carefully balance the interests of both the parents and students, encouraging parental input when the student consents, but avoiding it when the student expresses concern that parents would not be supportive, or that disclosing their gender identity to their parents may put them in harm’s way.”
Plaintiffs then appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit where, in a 2-1 decision on Monday, a panel of three judges dismissed the appeal for lack of standing, upholding Grimm’s original ruling.
Writing for the majority, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum asserted that the plaintiffs’ claim lacks proof that the gender identity guidelines caused them any injury—an essential element in a civil case. Quattlebaum wrote:
“The parents have not alleged that their children have gender support plans, are transgender or are even struggling with issues of gender identity. As a result, they have not alleged facts that the Montgomery County public schools have any information about their children that is currently being withheld or that there is a substantial risk information will be withheld in the future. Thus, under the Constitution, they have not alleged the type of injury required to show standing.”
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Paul Niemeyer described his colleagues’ interpretation of the case as “unfairly narrow” and asserted that discussions of students’ gender identity belong squarely in the home, not at school.
“The issue of whether and how grade school and high school students choose to pursue gender transition is a family matter, not one to be addressed initially and exclusively by public schools without the knowledge and consent of parents,” Niemeyer wrote.
When asked for comment on the ruling, MCPS spokesperson Chris Cram wrote to MoCo360 expressing satisfaction with the decision.
“MCPS was successful in the challenge against our Gender Identity Guidelines,” Cram wrote. “The appellate court returned the case to the district court and directed that it be dismissed. The case is resolved for now. MCPS supports the determination by the court.”
On behalf of the plaintiffs, Frederick Claybrook, Jr. from the Washington, D.C.-based Claybrook law firm sent a written statement to MoCo360 voicing support for Niemeyer’s position and claiming that the MCPS guidelines “violate parental rights.”
“Parents do not have to wait until they find out that damage has been done in secret before they may complain,” Claybrook wrote. “Moreover, the policy just by being in place affects family dynamics, as the dissenting judge pointed out. We are actively considering next steps in the legal process.”
The plaintiffs can choose to appeal the decision up to the next level—the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, Grimm’s decision will remain the operative law.