Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at info@fedsoc.org.
In Troxel v. Granville, a plurality of the Supreme Court described parental rights as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” and identified the law’s traditional presumption that the “natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.”
New gender identity policies in a wide variety of settings (public schools, counseling, custody, foster care, adoption, and health care) may challenge that traditional presumption. State and federal policies promote psycho-social, hormonal, and surgical procedures to treat children who experience discomfort with their biological sex. Government entities sometimes carry out these policies without parental notification or consent.
Parents who hold diverse religious beliefs are challenging (a) gender ideology in public school curricula; (b) secret social transitions in public schools; (c) state counseling bans; (d) denials of parental custody, foster care, and adoption; and (e) pressures toward pediatric gender transition in the healthcare context. Courts are thus facing difficult questions about who decides what is best for children—parents or the state?
The Federalist Society’s Religious Liberties Practice Group will host a breakout panel addressing these questions and more at this year’s National Lawyers Convention. Please join us in person or via livestream on Thursday, November 14, at 3:30pm.
