⚖️ How a U.S. Supreme Court ruling could affect your local reporting

The First Circuit has ruled in favor of students’ privacy rights at school. In Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, the court upheld a Massachusetts school policy requiring teachers to use a student’s requested name and pronouns, without notifying parents unless the student consents. The First Circuit found that the policy does not violate parents’ constitutional rights to due process.

“[P]arental rights are not unlimited,” the court wrote. “Parents may not invoke the Due Process Clause to create a preferred educational experience for their child in public school. As per our understanding of Supreme Court precedent, our pluralistic society assigns those curricular and administrative decisions to the expertise of school officials.”

This decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and therefore may be at risk of being overturned.

The Second Circuit hasn’t issued any relevant rulings yet, but will likely do so this year. In December 2025, the court heard arguments in Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District, a challenge to a New York school district policy allowing students to use their chosen name and pronouns at school without parental notification.

While we don’t know for sure how the Second Circuit will rule in this case, the court appeared skeptical of the challenge to this policy during oral arguments. Judges asked questions such as, “If a child was born named Jose Andres… would the school be obligated to tell the parents that the kid is now choosing to go by Joe?” and “A parent believes in corporal punishment. They think that it’s consistent with their religious beliefs. Their kid is acting up in school. The parent says, you know what, smack him. Is the school obligated to do that, to be conforming with religious beliefs?”

The Third Circuit has not issued any relevant rulings yet. Previously, the Third Circuit ruled in favor of students’ rights to use the school bathrooms that align with their gender identities.

The Fourth Circuit issued a favorable ruling on student privacy in Mahmoud v. Taylor, but this was later reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2025. The Supreme Court ruled that Maryland schools that use LGBTQ+-inclusive books must allow parents to opt their children out of those readings while the case proceeds. Following this ruling, the school board involved in the case voluntarily agreed to let parents censor any LGBTQ+-inclusive texts in its curriculum from their children.More recently, in Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, the Fourth Circuit showed its willingness to limit the impacts of the Mahmoud ruling. In this case, the court held that policies requiring public school teachers to respect trans students’ names and pronouns do not violate teachers’ free speech rights. “To rule otherwise,” the court wrote, “would unnecessarily authorize the judiciary to ‘interfere with the effective operation’ of the schools.” This ruling will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Previously, the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of students’ rights to use the school bathrooms that align with their gender identities, and in favor of trans student athletes’ right to compete (now being reviewed by the Supreme Court).

The Fifth Circuit hasn’t ruled specifically on forced outing. However, in Little v. Llano County, the court held that public libraries removing LGBTQ+-inclusive books doesn’t violate patrons’ free speech rights. In order to reach this decision, the court overruled a 1995 finding that students could challenge public school libraries’ removal of books. The 1995 ruling, the Fifth Circuit wrote, “was based on a mistaken reading of precedent.”

Previously, the Fifth Circuit has ruled against students' rights to use the school bathrooms that align with their gender identities.

In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit ruled that school board policies against misgendering trans students likely violate free speech rights.

“Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive—just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights,” the court wrote. “The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view.” Previously, the Sixth Circuit has ruled against students’ rights to use the school bathrooms that align with their gender identities.

In Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, the Seventh Circuit held that a parents’ association lacked standing to challenge a policy protecting students from forced outing. This decision has limited applicability, since it largely hinged on the fact that the policy was too new to have been applied yet. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court used this more procedural issue “as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions.”

The Seventh Circuit also issued a favorable ruling in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation. This case involved a public school teacher who was fired for consistently misgendering trans students and refusing to use their chosen names. The court held that this did not constitute religious discrimination against the teacher, because “the school has a legitimate interest in the mental health of its students, and an accommodation [for the teacher’s religious beliefs] is not reasonable.” Previously, the Seventh Circuit has ruled in favor of students’ rights to use the school bathrooms that align with their gender identities.

In Parents Defending Education v. Linn Mar Community School District, the Eighth Circuit found that an Iowa school policy that students can be disciplined if they refuse to “respect” classmates’ gender identities was likely too vague to be constitutional. This case also challenged a policy protecting students from being outed to their parents by teachers, but that policy ended while the case was ongoing because Iowa passed a law mandating students be outed.

Iowa’s law was later challenged by students and parents, and a district court paused some parts of the law while the case is ongoing. In Iowa Safe Schools v. Reynolds, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the mandatory outing law should be enforced while the case is considered.

The Ninth Circuit issued a favorable ruling on forced outing in Mirabelli v. Bonta, but key parts of this ruling have been annulled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Previously, the Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of students’ rights to use the school bathrooms that align with their gender identities, and in favor of trans student athletes' right to compete (now being reviewed by the Supreme Court).

In Lee v. Poudre School District, the Tenth Circuit found that a lawsuit challenging a protective policy against forced outing should be dismissed. This ruling was made before the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2025 U.S. v. Skrmetti decision.

After Skrmetti, the Tenth Circuit ruled unfavorably on a challenge to Oklahoma’s trans youth healthcare ban. The court is also reexamining a case in which it had ruled favorably about trans people’s right to amend identity documents. The Supreme Court annulled that decision based on its reasoning in Skrmetti, and told the Tenth Circuit to reconsider.

In November 2025, the Tenth Circuit heard arguments in Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education, a case about trans student bathroom use in public schools. Judges asked several questions about the applicability of Skrmetti.

In Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, the Eleventh Circuit found that parents are not entitled to financial damages from school officials who didn’t inform them of their child’s trans identity. It’s worth noting that this decision was unusually contentious — the 26-page ruling spawned 143 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions.

In Wood v. Florida Department of Education, the Eleventh Circuit held that Florida’s ban on trans teachers using their chosen name and pronouns was likely constitutional. Previously, the Eleventh Circuit has ruled against students’ rights to use the school bathrooms that align with their gender identities.