WILL promises to keep fighting on behalf of parents and sees the dissent as a step forward

The News: The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) issued a response to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) narrowly denying a Writ of Certiorari filed earlier this year in Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District. 

WILL, alongside America First Legal (AFL), sought SCOTUS review on behalf of an association of Wisconsin parents who opposed a school district’s secret gender transition policy that sidelined parental consent. WILL and AFL lost on standing in lower courts and never reached the merits. Three SCOTUS justices dissented, while just four would have been sufficient for the case to be heard. 

The Quotes: WILL Deputy Counsel, Luke Berg, stated, “Dissents do not remain dissents forever, and despite this denial, the fight for parents’ rights continues in Wisconsin and across the country. Thousands of school districts across our country have these policies and it has become an important part of our work at WILL. If parents cannot challenge them until after their children are harmed, they have no way to protect their kids other than pulling them from public school.” 

Additional Background: WILL’s case challenged the Eau Claire school district’s policy to hide gender identity transitions at school from parents. Our petition asks the Court to take the case to hold that when a school district adopts an explicit policy to usurp parental decision-making authority over a major health-related decision—and to conceal this from the parents—parents who are subject to the policy have standing to challenge it.   

In the dissent issued by Justice Alito and Thomas (Kavanaugh also would have granted the case), the Justices highlighted our exact concerns with the School District’s policy: “[T]he parents’ fear that the school district might make decisions for their children without their knowledge and consent is not ‘speculative’.” 

The justices went further stating, “I would grant the petition so that we can address this questionable understanding of Clapper and related standing decisions. I am concerned that some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions.”  

ABOUT WILL: We litigate, educate and participate in public discourse. Our case categories include Individual Liberties, Equality Under the Law, Constitutional Government and the Rule of Law, Economic Freedom, and Education Reform. We have prevailed in roughly 80% of the matters we have undertaken. Our record of winning is indisputable. WILL’s winning reputation has allowed us to settle other matters without ever filing a lawsuit. Find out more at: will-law.org. 

Read More: 

• SCOTUS Order Denying Cert Petition and Dissents, Issued December 2024  
• Petition For Writ of Certiorari, Filed June 2024