Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s recent ruling in Littlejohn v. Leon County regarding their daughter’s social transition at school, they argue that the decision was not just bad policy but also bad legal analysis. The court’s classification of the school’s actions as “executive” rather than “legislative” led to a lower standard of review, allowing the school officials to avoid strict scrutiny.
The parents assert that the school’s gender support plan for their daughter, which included using preferred pronouns and restrooms, should have been subject to strict scrutiny due to the fundamental right of parental decision-making. They argue that the court should have considered the policy as legislative, not executive, and applied a higher level of scrutiny to determine its constitutionality.
Furthermore, they point out that the court’s dismissal of the parents’ claim based on a lack of “conscience-shocking” conduct ignores the long-standing recognition of parental rights in case law. Judge Tjoflat’s dissent emphasizes the constitutional protection of parental rights in raising minor children and criticizes the majority’s decision for undermining these fundamental liberties.
Overall, the Littlejohns believe that the court’s ruling sets a concerning precedent for the protection of parental rights and fundamental liberties in educational settings. They are considering appealing the decision to seek justice for their daughter and uphold their rights as parents.
In a recent term, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions for review in two cases involving school gender secrecy policies.
Justice Tjloflat highlighted these cases in his dissent, emphasizing the importance of the issue. He quoted Justices Alito and Thomas, who had previously warned about similar cases, stating, “[t]his case presents a question of great and growing importance.”
Tjloflat raised a critical question: Does the Constitution still protect parents’ fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children when government actors intervene without their knowledge or consent? He criticized the decision for disregarding separation of powers principles, weakening fundamental rights, and contradicting prior panel precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. He concluded that the ruling was concerning for the future of fundamental rights.
This decision is indeed ominous.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
