Whether a public school violates parents' constitutional rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, the school encourages a student to transition to a new 'gender' or participates in that process

Petitioners Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri repeatedly directed their public middle school not to interfere with the upbringing and mental health care plan for B.F., their eleven -year-old daughter. But over their objections, school officials followed district pro tocol and secretly facilitated B.F.’s social gender tran sition anyway. The school treated B.F. as though she were nonbinary , authorized her to use opposite -sex facilities, conducted regular private counseling sessions, and participated in her gender transition . That led B.F. to question the suitability of her parents’ care plan —all without he r parents’ know ledge. After discovering the school’s actions, Petition ers demanded that officials stop . But the school doubled down, claiming parental know ledge and involve ment compro mise s their daughter’s safety. The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of Petition ers’ parental -right claims because Respondents’ secret transition of their daughter (1) took place in a public school, where parental rights are supposedly dimin ished , particularly over curricular and admini strative matters , (2) was purportedly not “coer cive” or “restraining” and therefore consis tent with the minor child’s choice, which superseded the parents’ rights , and (3) did not involve her mental health. That decision deepen ed entrenched splits over the scope of parent al rights . The question presented is : Whether a public school violates parents ’ consti tutional rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, the school encourages a student to transition to a new “ gender ” or participates in that process .