In Mead v. Rockford Public School District, (WD MI, Sept. 18, 2025), parents of a middle school student, referred to as G.M., challenged a school's policy on non-disclosure of their child's social transitioning of gender. The school referred to G.M. by a female name and pronouns when speaking with the parents. However, teachers and other employees referred to the child by a masculine name and with masculine pronouns at school. A Michigan federal district court held that this did not violate parents' free exercise rights, but that parents had stated due process claims. The court said in part:
Plaintiffs argue that the District has conditioned the privilege of their child attending public school on their willingness to abandon their sincere religious beliefs. Not so. As parents, the Meads “are not being coerced or compelled into recognizing any individual in any particular way inconsistent with their religious beliefs.” ... The District allows its students to request their preferred name and pronouns.... In no way does that compel students or their parents to recognize a preferred name or pronouns of the opposite sex.
Accordingly, the court finds the District’s policy and practice to be neutral and generally applicable. As a result, the policy and practice are not subject to strict scrutiny but must have a rational basis....
Defendants proffer the legitimate purpose of promoting a safe and supportive learning environment for LGBTQ students.... Plaintiffs do not dispute that the policy is rationally related to this purpose....
Plaintiffs allege two fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, (1) the parental right to direct the upbringing of their child and their child’s education, and (2) the parental right to direct their child’s healthcare. Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the District infringed upon the first set of rights when it failed to inform them of their child’s requested gender transition and when it deceived them so they wouldn’t find out besides their child telling them. Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the District infringed upon the second set of rights when it conducted a “psychosocial intervention” to treat their child’s gender dysphoria and other mental health disorders.
ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.
