The Supreme Court has been asked to hear a case involving a Maine school district which hid the fact that a 13-year-old was transitioning at school from her parents. Amber Lavigne, the girl’s mom, discovered what was happening by accident back in 2022.
In early December 2022, Amber was helping clean her child’s bedroom when she discovered a chest binder—an undergarment used to flatten breasts so the wearer appears more masculine. She learned that her child received the binder from a social worker at Great Salt Bay Community School, a public school in Maine. The counselor said he would keep it secret from the child’s mom, and that the child didn’t have to tell her, either. The Goldwater Institute took up Amber’s case, asserting that the school was violating her constitutional rights as a parent…
After learning about the chest binder, Amber confronted both the school principal and the superintendent of the school district about the secrecy, but they only justified the social worker’s actions. They told Amber the social worker hadn’t violated any school policy by giving her 13-year-old a chest binder without informing her about it.
The school district did have a police for dealing with this and the board claimed the policy prevented any conflict with parental rights. There was only one problem: The school didn’t seem to be abiding by the policy.
The board’s written guidelines for “addressing the needs of transgender students” require parental involvement. So, the school board says, there can be no constitutional violation. But Lavigne argues that the actual policy, as demonstrated by her surprise upon discovering the facts about her child at school, is to withhold information from parents.
Even after Lavigne had objected to the school’s sneakiness, no school employee was disciplined. And the school board unanimously voted to award a new contract to the social worker who taught Lavigne’s daughter how to use the binder, and who told her he would not inform her mother. The advertised guidelines might as well be written in smoke on water…
The school board in Maine justified the school’s surreptitiousness regarding Lavigne by citing a state law affirming a student’s right to privacy “regardless of age.” And another state law allows students of any age “to establish their own confidential counseling relationship with a school based mental health services provider.”
Lavigne pulled all of her kids out of public schools and in April of 2023 she sued the Great Salt Bay Community School District. A judge dismissed her claim on the grounds that she hadn’t demonstrated the existence of an alternate de facto policy for dealing with such circumstances. On appeal the case dismissal was affirmed.
Last December, the Goldwater Institute asked the Supreme Court to take up the case. There is some reason to think the court will take this up as there are already several similar cases pending from different states.
There are multiple cases now pending before the Supreme Court asking the Justices to take up similar questions. This includes a case out of Massachusetts where a public school went beyond a parent’s explicit wishes and recognized a child as transgender without telling the parents. A similar case that began in Florida is also pending before the Court. This is a pressing issue that cries out for the Supreme Court’s involvement to ensure parents’ rights are protected.
Will the court take it up? We don’t know yet, but it does seem there are some heavy constitutional issues here worth clarifying.
Hiding vital information from parents about a child’s psychological and physical development isn’t just wrong, its unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has consistently held that parents have a fundamental right to control and direct the education and care of their children. These parental rights are broad, and government may only intrude on them when necessary to protect a child’s health and safety—for example, if there is evidence of abuse, which there is not in Amber’s case.
Unfortunately, officials at the Great Salt Bay Community School insist their actions were not just lawful, but even required by state law. The situation is just the latest example in a recent trend of public school leaders insisting they know better than parents about how children should be raised. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court has made absolutely clear that “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
The court has a hearing scheduled about the case next week. Hopefully they’ll agree to take it up and put an end to progressive school districts doing an end run around parental rights.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
