WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, America First Legal (AFL) filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as it continues its fight to hold Pennsylvania’s Pine-Richland School District accountable for secretly providing taxpayer-funded “gender transition teams” to students without parental notification or consent in violation of constitutional due process, and President Trump’s recent Executive Order “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.”

Pine-Richland School District’s unlawful policy requires that schools:

• Address the student by his or her “preferred pronouns;”
• Use the student’s “preferred name, gender, and pronouns” on “school records or documents, such as school IDs, classroom rosters or the year-book;”
• Permit the student to use whatever bathroom that the student chooses;
• Participate on the sports team corresponding with the student’s “identity;”

It also empowers “gender transition teams” of school officials, nurses, psychologists, and principals to develop strategies to mutilate children to match their “gender identity.” The school district believes that “notifying a student’s parent about his or her gender identity or transition may be unnecessary.” 

AFL’s client instructed the school district that, absent her prior written consent, it could not refer her child to any mental health counselor or social worker for evaluation and directed it to notify her of any matters related to the “gender identity” or “gender dysphoria” of her child. However, the Pine-Richland School District responded that under no circumstances would the school district notify her if her child requested “gender transitioning resources.” Fearing her child was at risk of irreversible long-term harm, she left the public school system. 

On January 12, 2024, AFL sued the school district, arguing that its gender transition policy violates its client’s constitutional rights. On February 5, 2024, AFL filed a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit to stop the school district from violating our client’s constitutional rights. However, the district court dismissed AFL’s lawsuit on the grounds that AFL’s client had not been injured and lacked standing. On appeal, AFL argues that the district court erred and that its client has standing to defend her due process rights. 

AFL will continue fighting relentlessly to protect our children. 

Read the brief here.

Read more information about the case here.

Photo credit: Adobe Stock Images/Studio Romantic