Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Pinned
Reposted by Mitch King
Reposted by Mitch King
Reposted by Mitch King
Reposted by Mitch King
Reposted by Mitch King
Reposted by Mitch King
Reposted by Mitch King
Reposted by Mitch King
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JONATHAN LEE, ET AL. v. POUDRE
SCHOOL DISTRICT R–1
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 25–89. Decided October 14, 2025
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE
THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, respecting the denial
of certiorari.
I concur in the denial of certiorari because petitioners do
not challenge the ground for the ruling below. But I remain
concerned that some federal courts are “tempt[ed]” to avoid
confronting a “particularly contentious constitutional questio[n]”: whether a school district violates parents’ fundamental rights “when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender
or assists in that process.” Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School Dist., 604 U. S. ___,
___–___ (2024) (ALITO, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1–2) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U. S.
57, 70 (2000) (plurality opinion)). Petitioners tell us that
nearly 6,000 public schools have policies—as respondent allegedly does—that purposefully interfere with parents’ access to critical information about their children’s genderidentity choices and school personnel’s involvement in and
influence on those choices. Pet. for Cert. 24. The troubling—and tragic—allegations in this case underscore the
“great and growing national importance” of the question
that these parent petitioners present. Parents Protecting
Our Children, 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreibznytltv7mexkfzlraxhxhcwvilqwad7bmgdmbtd643ln7wd375y@jpeg)
Reposted by Mitch King
Reposted by Mitch King
