A Maine mom has now asked the United States Supreme Court to consider her case against a Damariscotta school in which she alleges they withheld information from her about her child’s gender transition.
In December of 2022, mother Amber Lavigne discovered that a then-26-year-old social worker by the name of Samuel Roy had given her 13-year-old child two breast binders — garments designed to conceal the appearance of a female’s breasts — and provided instructions on their use.
Lavigne also said that she was not told when Roy and other school officials began to use an alternative name and pronoun set for her child, a fact that was subsequently denied by Great Salt Bay Community School (GSBCS) officials.
In May of last year, District Court Judge Jon D. Levy found that the mother — Amber Lavigne — failed to state a claim because the facts provided in this case were insufficient to establish municipal liability.
Since the judge’s reasoning then was based solely on Lavigne’s inability to show that the municipality could legally be found responsible for the alleged violations, he did not address the underlying constitutional questions associated with Lavigne’s claims.
Later that month, Lavigne appealed this dismissal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately upheld the ruling in July.
The petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court by Lavigne and her legal team asks the Justices to consider two primary questions with respect to her case.
Firstly, she asks the Court to weigh in on the procedural issue of whether or not a case may be dismissed due to the presence of a “probable alternative explanation” or if the plaintiff’s explanation itself must be found implausible.
Secondly, the petition looks to have the Justices rule directly whether or not parents’ “fundamental constitutional rights” include the right to notification when a public school “affirmatively recognize[s] and facilitate[s] a child’s gender transition.”
It is argued in the petition that the lower courts in this case did not “independently determine whether Lavigne’s explanation was plausible or implausible.”
The petitioners further point out that the procedural question posed in their writ of certiorari is one that various circuit courts have answered differently, positing that this makes it ripe for the Justices to decide.
Regarding the issue of parental rights, Lavigne and her legal team argue that her case presents the Justices with an “urgent constitutional question,” characterizing the First Circuit’s failure to provide a clear answer as an “avoidance” of the matter.
On this issue as well, the petitioners highlight a circuit court split, suggesting that the “contours” of parents’ right to “control and direct their children’s education,” as previously established by the Supreme Court.
“Resolving this fundamental split…is a prerequisite to providing uniform guidance on the legality of school gender-identity policies across the nation — a question that will continue to be raised before this Court and the federal court of appeals,” the petition states.
The petitioners conclude their request by outlining why they believe their case is an appropriate vehicle for the Supreme Court to answer these questions, pointing to two specific aspects of the case.
More specifically, the petitioners state that the facts of the case are “accepted as true,” meaning that the Court can address the legal questions posed by this case without concern for “factual disputes or pretrial evidentiary complexities.”
They also note that the procedural question being asked is one that “always and only” arises at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
“Given the deeply entrenched nature of the circuit splits on both the pleading standard (Question I) and the scope of parental rights (Question II), percolation will do nothing to resolve the conflicts or provide the lower courts with additional information,” the petitioners conclude. “Uniform national guidance is needed, and this case is the ideal vehicle for this Court to provide that uniform guidance.”
Click Here to Read Lavigne’s Full Supreme Court Petition
The organization providing representation for Lavigne in this case publicly shared the Supreme Court petition in a late December statement.
“We are asking the Supreme Court to step in and make it clear that parents like Amber have a right to know when public school officials make important decisions affecting the mental health and physical wellbeing of their children,” said Goldwater Institute attorney Adam Shelton in that statement.
“This situation is really about my parental rights being violated,” said Lavigne in the same press release. “It’s about a social worker who had never even had a conversation with me encouraging my child to keep secrets from me and telling my child that he wasn’t going to tell me about it so my child could keep it from me too.”
The Goldwater Institute’s press release points to cases out of Massachusetts and Florida that are currently pending before the Supreme Court that also concern disputes between parents and public schools over gender-related issues.
