I understand why we bring cases to scotus on a principled level, but it feels almost self defeating to keep brining them of an openly hostile and ideological court.
There has to be a better way to challenge these and deal with all of this.
The case was headed to the 9th District Circuit Court, I believe, in the natural course of the Law; conservative side made an “emergency” appeal (despite this not being an emergency) to SCOTUS and the 6 justices chose to butt in preemptively.
Another reason to worry about trans kids who are struggling in the midst of unsupportive families and communities.
These "shadow docket" are not the court's final ruling, but they do reflect the likelihood that the court's final ruling will reiterte this ruling.
If parental rights are paramount, then we need to speak up for the rights of parents who believe that their child is transgender and is entitled to proper medical care.
We also need Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson to invite Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch to dinner along with a lawyer who happens to be transgender.
At the earliest possible opportunity, we need a bill of children's rights in this country. It needs to make crystal clear that while parents have wide latitude in choosing how to raise their children, parental rights, for the sake of the child's wellbeing, 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 be absolute. No more forced detransitions, no more conversion "therapy," no more praying over their bedside to make the fever go away when they should be taken to the hospital, no denying them lifesaving care of any kind because it's against their fucking religion, or politics, or 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳... basically any time a child's needs- especially 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 needs- come into conflict with their parents' desires or beliefs, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥'𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. Children are people, not possessions. They deserve better than this.
The conservatives on the United States Supreme Court have once again used the shadows to do what it lacks the courage to defend in the light.
Through an unsigned, rushed order on its so-called “shadow docket,” the Court has enabled schools to forcibly out transgender students to their parents — stripping vulnerable young people of privacy, autonomy, and, in many cases, safety.
This was not a careful constitutional decision.
It was an ideological maneuver executed without full argument, without transparency, and without accountability.
Let us speak plainly: forced outing endangers children.
The justices who voted for this know that not every home is safe.
They know that LGBTQ youth face higher rates of family rejection, homelessness, and abuse.
They know that privacy protections existed because educators and mental-health professionals warned of the consequences.
And they chose to disregard that reality.
This decision is not about “parental rights.” It is about power — the power of the state to control identity, to override a young person’s dignity, and to signal that transgender lives are negotiable.
And this ruling does not exist in isolation.
It follows a steady drumbeat of decisions narrowing protections for transgender Americans — in healthcare, in education, and in public life.
The pattern is unmistakable.
The Court’s majority is not neutral. It is actively reshaping constitutional law to carve transgender people out of its promises.
When the Court uses emergency orders to advance a culture-war agenda, it damages more than the lives of transgender youth — it damages the legitimacy of the judiciary itself.
The shadow docket was meant for genuine emergencies.
Instead, it has become a tool for quiet revolution.
But here is what the Court cannot do:
It cannot erase transgender people.
It cannot legislate identity out of existence.
It cannot silence a generation that refuses to disappear.
Transgender youth are not political pawns.
They are children deserving of safety, respect, and equal protection under the law.
If the Supreme Court will not defend that principle, then communities, states, advocates, and voters must.
History is watching. And history has never been kind to institutions that target vulnerable minorities under the guise of procedure.
We will not be quiet.
We will not retreat.
And we will not accept a judiciary that treats our children as collateral damage in its ideological campaign.
The fight for equality does not end in the shadows.
It moves into the streets, the legislatures, and the ballot box — until dignity and protection are restored.
The Supreme Injustices strike again. This court is completely illegitimate at this point. The legal path as it currently exists is indeed bleak. Which is why any Democrat candidate in 2028 must make court reform a swift and dramatic priority. It's the only way to restore trust in the highest level of the judiciary. In the meantime, we must be courageous and encourage others to be as well. Let "I will not comply" be a mantra.
The conservative SCOTUS justices seem to think parents always know and act on what is best for their children—are they each oblivious to the need for Child Protective Services in EVERY city, county, & state in this country?!? The ignorance and stupidity of these particular justices is breathtaking.
This is bad. I feel bad for the kids being affected. I work in a high school and nothing my state,Texas ever says will make me do anything to harm a Trans child. There are two Transgirl in the classes that I cover. I call them by their chosen names.
This is an example of more x-tian love. When I meet people like them, I really enjoy watching their faces when I tell them I am Wiccan.
Yes. I think the midterms will likely see 55 D Senators and 12 R Senators willing to remove him -- question is whether they can settle on who replaces him/how many MAGA in the succession will they yeet.
This Supreme Court is a corrupted institution that is currently serving as nothing more than a judicial cudgel on behalf of Trump and his war against the trans community.
While I think the extent of the practice of schools facilitating transition without parental consent is grossly exaggerated and pure moral panic kindling, I'm not without reservations about it happening at all.
Let’s be clear this is not because I think juvenile transition should not be allowed. I absolutely think it should be supported including with medical interventions where the child shows need and understanding of the implications albeit that should be a more rigorous process than for adults (which is to say 18+ patients, not the Trump administration’s moved goalposts).
However it always seemed to me that a school doing this exposes the child to an enormous, but perhaps more importantly unmanageable risk from the parents. How did the plaintiffs in this case find out the school was doing it?
I can think of some easy scenarios.
1) A peer bully at the school told them to spite their child. Kids can be vile and routinely act without understanding the consequences of their behaviour.
2) Other parents learned about it and told them whether innocently or out of their own spite.
3) A staff bully at the school told them, motivated by whatever ideological spite suited them.
4) The different name was accidentally spilled by the school in perfectly legitimate contact (a letter or parents evening, say).
5) The child themself accidentally spilled it. Perhaps they took their affirmed gender school clothes home thinking they could put them through the wash before parents got back but mum or dad got back from work early that day.
I could certainly imagine circumstances where the risks from the school not supporting the child might outweigh the risks of accidental disclosure to the family but without any awareness shown of this risk balancing exercise I am certainly reluctant to favour this approach.
None of this comment should be taken as a belief on my part that “mandatory forced outing” is being imposed in good faith. I know full well the purpose of these impositions is to create such a hostile environment for young trans people that even supportive parents can’t ensure their child’s transition is respected.
I think you may be confused on a couple details in this case? 1) You think the “extent of the practice of schools facilitating transition” is exaggerated; not only is that true, but schools are simply accommodating students who wish to use a preferred name and/or pronouns as they either test the waters of gender exploration or out of a desire to be their known selves, allowing such students to be happier and healthier at a place where they have to spend many hours of their time in what is often already a stressful social environment. 2) Schools are NOT providing or facilitating “medical interventions.” Other than maybe guiding a student toward accurate information about transgender terms, options, healthcare, etc., or a counselor providing a listening ear and the same types of guidance they would to any student in their care, schools cannot “facilitate” medical interventions - which you seem to assume here they can do. 3) Finally, all your suppositions are, I believe, inaccurate. Someone else may be able to confirm this, but I believe this case is more a result of organized conservative groups challenging a pre-existing California policy that honored any relationship of trust between student and teacher, especially when said student expresses concern for their safety, comfort, or support in the home, for whatever reason.
I could probably have written up my initial remarks clearer to reflect that while I personally think medical transition for juveniles should be supported if their circumstances warranted it, I wasn't suggesting that I thought schools either had in this case or did so generally. I'm aware that is far-right transphobic scaremongering. I also think that in principal a child should be supported in seeking the personal expression that works best for them whether that is simply trying out something different from the default they were assigned or committing to social transition. I was trying to make clear I’m not a “wait and see” apologist.
However, what I have not seen considered is the risk the school could place the child in by endorsing even the slightest public “testing of the waters” without parental knowledge. Children may well organically experiment among themselves regardless of school policy. A school is a remarkably bad place to keep secrets (as per my hypothetical cases). If those parents really did present an abuse risk to a trans or exploring child then the school would have to ask itself very carefully whether the gains from letting the child be entirely themself (whatever that looks like) were worth exposing them to the risk of harm when they got home because one person out of the hundreds involved with the school didn’t know (or care) that the parents were dangerous.
Yes, the school should support the child to the maximum extent they can, but they cannot protect them once they get home. From my experience of child social services in the UK, I struggle to imagine Child Protective Services as models of lightning efficiency. I imagine they are underfunded and overstretched. In such cases, the lesser evil sounds like it often would be not to publicly affirm. That, however, should be a matter for safeguarding professionals to decide on the merits of the case, not to be forced by judicial fiat.
I understand why we bring cases to scotus on a principled level, but it feels almost self defeating to keep brining them of an openly hostile and ideological court.
There has to be a better way to challenge these and deal with all of this.
The case was headed to the 9th District Circuit Court, I believe, in the natural course of the Law; conservative side made an “emergency” appeal (despite this not being an emergency) to SCOTUS and the 6 justices chose to butt in preemptively.
Assuming it makes it to them in the end, the outcome is more or less predetermined.
Sadly I fear adolescent suicide will be on the rise. This is a very sad day for our Trans youth.
it already is, and goes up every time something like this happens. the cruelty is the point.
Bullies!
Another reason to worry about trans kids who are struggling in the midst of unsupportive families and communities.
These "shadow docket" are not the court's final ruling, but they do reflect the likelihood that the court's final ruling will reiterte this ruling.
If parental rights are paramount, then we need to speak up for the rights of parents who believe that their child is transgender and is entitled to proper medical care.
We also need Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson to invite Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch to dinner along with a lawyer who happens to be transgender.
Meanwhile, what happened to all their " turning it over to the States" claims?
oh surprise. a hack court makes hack decision.
As they have been paid to do
Feels like the Supreme Court is handing out anti-trans rulings like they’re giving away Chick-fil-a sandwiches
At the earliest possible opportunity, we need a bill of children's rights in this country. It needs to make crystal clear that while parents have wide latitude in choosing how to raise their children, parental rights, for the sake of the child's wellbeing, 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 be absolute. No more forced detransitions, no more conversion "therapy," no more praying over their bedside to make the fever go away when they should be taken to the hospital, no denying them lifesaving care of any kind because it's against their fucking religion, or politics, or 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳... basically any time a child's needs- especially 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 needs- come into conflict with their parents' desires or beliefs, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥'𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. Children are people, not possessions. They deserve better than this.
I agree - and restore the anti-child labor laws that some Southern states have repealed.
This breaks my heart for trans youth and their loved ones. You shouldn’t have to fight so hard for your right to exist.
Looks like we can't expect any help from the Supremes. We're gonna have to take to the streets soon.
The conservatives on the United States Supreme Court have once again used the shadows to do what it lacks the courage to defend in the light.
Through an unsigned, rushed order on its so-called “shadow docket,” the Court has enabled schools to forcibly out transgender students to their parents — stripping vulnerable young people of privacy, autonomy, and, in many cases, safety.
This was not a careful constitutional decision.
It was an ideological maneuver executed without full argument, without transparency, and without accountability.
Let us speak plainly: forced outing endangers children.
The justices who voted for this know that not every home is safe.
They know that LGBTQ youth face higher rates of family rejection, homelessness, and abuse.
They know that privacy protections existed because educators and mental-health professionals warned of the consequences.
And they chose to disregard that reality.
This decision is not about “parental rights.” It is about power — the power of the state to control identity, to override a young person’s dignity, and to signal that transgender lives are negotiable.
And this ruling does not exist in isolation.
It follows a steady drumbeat of decisions narrowing protections for transgender Americans — in healthcare, in education, and in public life.
The pattern is unmistakable.
The Court’s majority is not neutral. It is actively reshaping constitutional law to carve transgender people out of its promises.
When the Court uses emergency orders to advance a culture-war agenda, it damages more than the lives of transgender youth — it damages the legitimacy of the judiciary itself.
The shadow docket was meant for genuine emergencies.
Instead, it has become a tool for quiet revolution.
But here is what the Court cannot do:
It cannot erase transgender people.
It cannot legislate identity out of existence.
It cannot silence a generation that refuses to disappear.
Transgender youth are not political pawns.
They are children deserving of safety, respect, and equal protection under the law.
If the Supreme Court will not defend that principle, then communities, states, advocates, and voters must.
History is watching. And history has never been kind to institutions that target vulnerable minorities under the guise of procedure.
We will not be quiet.
We will not retreat.
And we will not accept a judiciary that treats our children as collateral damage in its ideological campaign.
The fight for equality does not end in the shadows.
It moves into the streets, the legislatures, and the ballot box — until dignity and protection are restored.
The Supreme Injustices strike again. This court is completely illegitimate at this point. The legal path as it currently exists is indeed bleak. Which is why any Democrat candidate in 2028 must make court reform a swift and dramatic priority. It's the only way to restore trust in the highest level of the judiciary. In the meantime, we must be courageous and encourage others to be as well. Let "I will not comply" be a mantra.
The conservative SCOTUS justices seem to think parents always know and act on what is best for their children—are they each oblivious to the need for Child Protective Services in EVERY city, county, & state in this country?!? The ignorance and stupidity of these particular justices is breathtaking.
This is bad. I feel bad for the kids being affected. I work in a high school and nothing my state,Texas ever says will make me do anything to harm a Trans child. There are two Transgirl in the classes that I cover. I call them by their chosen names.
This is an example of more x-tian love. When I meet people like them, I really enjoy watching their faces when I tell them I am Wiccan.
So troubling, disturbing. So wrong.
I need to point it out. If the midterms mean we can remove Trump! we can remove SCOTUS justices too.
How though? Unless they die or retire there doesn't seem to be a way to get rid of them.
Impeachment and removal applies to any federal office named in the Constitution.
And that requires 67 Senate votes to accomplish.
Yes. I think the midterms will likely see 55 D Senators and 12 R Senators willing to remove him -- question is whether they can settle on who replaces him/how many MAGA in the succession will they yeet.
This Supreme Court is a corrupted institution that is currently serving as nothing more than a judicial cudgel on behalf of Trump and his war against the trans community.
While I think the extent of the practice of schools facilitating transition without parental consent is grossly exaggerated and pure moral panic kindling, I'm not without reservations about it happening at all.
Let’s be clear this is not because I think juvenile transition should not be allowed. I absolutely think it should be supported including with medical interventions where the child shows need and understanding of the implications albeit that should be a more rigorous process than for adults (which is to say 18+ patients, not the Trump administration’s moved goalposts).
However it always seemed to me that a school doing this exposes the child to an enormous, but perhaps more importantly unmanageable risk from the parents. How did the plaintiffs in this case find out the school was doing it?
I can think of some easy scenarios.
1) A peer bully at the school told them to spite their child. Kids can be vile and routinely act without understanding the consequences of their behaviour.
2) Other parents learned about it and told them whether innocently or out of their own spite.
3) A staff bully at the school told them, motivated by whatever ideological spite suited them.
4) The different name was accidentally spilled by the school in perfectly legitimate contact (a letter or parents evening, say).
5) The child themself accidentally spilled it. Perhaps they took their affirmed gender school clothes home thinking they could put them through the wash before parents got back but mum or dad got back from work early that day.
I could certainly imagine circumstances where the risks from the school not supporting the child might outweigh the risks of accidental disclosure to the family but without any awareness shown of this risk balancing exercise I am certainly reluctant to favour this approach.
None of this comment should be taken as a belief on my part that “mandatory forced outing” is being imposed in good faith. I know full well the purpose of these impositions is to create such a hostile environment for young trans people that even supportive parents can’t ensure their child’s transition is respected.
I think you may be confused on a couple details in this case? 1) You think the “extent of the practice of schools facilitating transition” is exaggerated; not only is that true, but schools are simply accommodating students who wish to use a preferred name and/or pronouns as they either test the waters of gender exploration or out of a desire to be their known selves, allowing such students to be happier and healthier at a place where they have to spend many hours of their time in what is often already a stressful social environment. 2) Schools are NOT providing or facilitating “medical interventions.” Other than maybe guiding a student toward accurate information about transgender terms, options, healthcare, etc., or a counselor providing a listening ear and the same types of guidance they would to any student in their care, schools cannot “facilitate” medical interventions - which you seem to assume here they can do. 3) Finally, all your suppositions are, I believe, inaccurate. Someone else may be able to confirm this, but I believe this case is more a result of organized conservative groups challenging a pre-existing California policy that honored any relationship of trust between student and teacher, especially when said student expresses concern for their safety, comfort, or support in the home, for whatever reason.
I could probably have written up my initial remarks clearer to reflect that while I personally think medical transition for juveniles should be supported if their circumstances warranted it, I wasn't suggesting that I thought schools either had in this case or did so generally. I'm aware that is far-right transphobic scaremongering. I also think that in principal a child should be supported in seeking the personal expression that works best for them whether that is simply trying out something different from the default they were assigned or committing to social transition. I was trying to make clear I’m not a “wait and see” apologist.
However, what I have not seen considered is the risk the school could place the child in by endorsing even the slightest public “testing of the waters” without parental knowledge. Children may well organically experiment among themselves regardless of school policy. A school is a remarkably bad place to keep secrets (as per my hypothetical cases). If those parents really did present an abuse risk to a trans or exploring child then the school would have to ask itself very carefully whether the gains from letting the child be entirely themself (whatever that looks like) were worth exposing them to the risk of harm when they got home because one person out of the hundreds involved with the school didn’t know (or care) that the parents were dangerous.
Yes, the school should support the child to the maximum extent they can, but they cannot protect them once they get home. From my experience of child social services in the UK, I struggle to imagine Child Protective Services as models of lightning efficiency. I imagine they are underfunded and overstretched. In such cases, the lesser evil sounds like it often would be not to publicly affirm. That, however, should be a matter for safeguarding professionals to decide on the merits of the case, not to be forced by judicial fiat.