Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Florida Case Over Gender Identity in Schools

A federal appeals court has ruled against a Florida couple who sued their child’s school district, claiming officials had disregarded their wishes and excluded them from discussions regarding their child’s gender identity.

This decision further complicates the legal landscape surrounding minors and gender identity. While Republican lawmakers across the country have introduced measures to limit gender-transition care and the expression of gender identity, federal courts remain divided on whether such laws violate equal protection rights.

Some parents, like those in this Florida case, argue that their parental rights should take precedence over a child’s desire to transition. Others, facing restrictions on transition-related care for minors, contend that their children are entitled to access the medical care they believe is necessary for their well-being.

At the center of the case is January Littlejohn, who, along with her husband, filed a lawsuit against the Leon County School District in Tallahassee. She has since emerged as a vocal advocate for parental rights and is now affiliated with an organization opposing gender-transition care. Last week, she attended President Trump’s address to Congress as a guest of former First Lady Melania Trump.

During his speech, Mr. Trump praised Ms. Littlejohn, describing her as “a courageous advocate against this form of child abuse” while outlining his administration’s efforts to “protect our children from harmful ideologies in our schools.”

However, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected the Littlejohns’ claims and upheld a lower court’s ruling that dismissed the case.

Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum, writing for the majority, stated that although the Littlejohns may have disagreed with the school’s approach to supporting their child, the officials’ actions did not meet the constitutional threshold of behavior that “shocks the conscience.”

The couple’s attorney did not confirm whether they plan to appeal but stressed that they would not let this “assault on parental rights” go unchallenged.

“This ruling wrongly emboldens school districts to operate in secrecy, undermining parental rights that the Supreme Court has upheld for over a century,” said Vernadette Broyles, president and general counsel of the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, a nonprofit legal organization.

The lawsuit does not disclose the child’s name but states that before the 2020-21 school year at Deerlake Middle School in Tallahassee, the child requested to be addressed with they/them pronouns and a more masculine name. While the Littlejohns accepted the new name as a nickname, they did not explicitly approve the use of different pronouns and communicated this to school staff.

At the time, the school district followed a 2018 policy stating that “outing a student, especially to parents, can be very dangerous” to the student’s well-being. The policy also allowed for a support plan to document whether parents were “supportive” of their child’s identity or whether the student’s LGBTQ+ status should be disclosed to them. (The policy was revised in 2022 after Florida passed a law prohibiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity.)

When the Littlejohns discovered their child’s identity change, they questioned the school’s decision to exclude them from meetings about the support plan. Administrators explained that since the child had not requested parental involvement and no law mandated parental notification, they were not required to inform them.

“It is our fundamental right to guide our children’s upbringing,” Ms. Littlejohn stated in a video shared by the White House this month. “That includes their mental and physical health care.”

The couple subsequently sued the school district, its superintendent, an assistant superintendent, an equity officer, and a school counselor, arguing that their due process and privacy rights as parents had been violated. However, in December 2022, Chief Judge Mark E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the case, a decision that the appeals court upheld on Wednesday.

Judge Rosenbaum, in her ruling, noted that the school officials “did not force the Littlejohns’ child to do anything at all” and emphasized that their intent was not to cause harm but to support the student.

A lawyer representing the school district and staff declined to comment immediately.

Following Mr. Trump’s public endorsement of Ms. Littlejohn, Leon County Schools Superintendent Rocky Hanna told The Tallahassee Democrat: “To deliberately spread falsehoods and disparage our teachers and public schools for political gain is reprehensible. I hope our federal courts prioritize truth and integrity more than Ms. Littlejohn, our current governor, and our current president.”

The 169-page ruling revealed divisions within the court, including disagreements between the two judges who upheld the case’s dismissal.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Kevin C. Newsom criticized the school district’s actions as “shameful.” However, he emphasized that the legal issue at hand was whether those actions were unconstitutional.

“If I were a legislator, I’d vote to change the policy that enabled school officials to keep the Littlejohns in the dark,” he wrote. “But—and this is a crucial distinction—judges are not simply politicians in robes. They cannot, and should not, rule based on personal preferences.”

Dissenting from the majority, Senior Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat warned that the ruling undermines fundamental rights, disregards established legal precedents, and violates core separation-of-powers principles.