Indiana Enacts Parental Rights Law

On April 22, Indiana Governor Mike Braun signed Senate Bill 143 protecting Parental Rights. The new law (full text) provides in part:

... A governmental entity may not substantially burden a parent's fundamental right to direct the: (1) upbringing; (2) religious instruction; (3) education; or (4) health care; of the parent's child, unless the burden, as applied to the parent and the child, is required to advance a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of advancing the governmental interest.

... A governmental entity may not: (1) advise, direct, or coerce a child to withhold information from the child's parent; or (2) deny a child's parent access to information that: (A) is in the control of the governmental entity (B) is requested by the child's parent; and (C) relates to the child's health care or social, emotional, and behavioral well-being.

ADF issued a press release supporting the enactment of the new law.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Permissive Opt-Out of Children from Exposure To LGBTQ-Friendly Books

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge to a school board's refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of exposure to a group of LGBTQ inclusive books. The parents contended that refusal to provide an opt out alternative violates their religious free exercise rights. (See prior posting). The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the numerous amicus briefs filed in the case as well as to other pleadings and relevant news coverage of the case.  Oral arguments will be streamed live here at 10:00 AM today. A transcript and audio recording of the arguments will be posted here by the Court later today. A SCOTUSblog article has further background on the case.

Parents Lack Standing to Challenge Law Barring Schools from Disclosing Child's Change of Name or Pronoun

In Chino Valley Unified School District v. Newsom, (ED CA, April 18, 2025), a California federal district court held that plaintiffs, parents of school children, lack standing to challenge a California law that prohibits public schools from requiring disclosure to parents, without their child's consent, of their child's change of name or gender pronoun at school. Plaintiffs are "devout Christians and believe that God created man and woman as distinct, immutable genders." They contend that the law violates their free exercise rights and their right to control the upbringing and medical care of their children.  The court said in part:

While the Court has no doubt as to the concern that Plaintiff Parents have toward the implementation of AB 1955, Plaintiff Parents have not shown that they have suffered or will imminently suffer any form of harm as a result the Act.  For example, Plaintiff Parents do not allege that their own child has gone or goes by a different name at school, that their children’s school has deprived the parents of relevant information about their child, or that this is something that is likely to happen in the future....

West Virginia Enacts Parents' Bill of Rights

On April 14, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey signed HB 2129, the Parents' Bill of Rights (full text). The new law provides in part:

(a) All parental rights are reserved to the parent of a minor child in this state ...  including, but not limited to ...: (1) The right to direct the education and care of his or her minor child. (2) The right to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of his or her minor child. (3) The right to apply to enroll his or her minor child in a public school or, as an alternative to public education, a private school, including a religious school, a home education program, or other available options, as authorized by law. (4) The right to access and review all school records relating to his or her minor child. (5) The right to make health care decisions for his or her minor child, unless otherwise prohibited by law.

Under the new law, the state may interfere with parental rights only if it demonstrates that its action is reasonable and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored, and is not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.

School's Gender Support Policy Did Not Violate Parent's Free Exercise or Due Process Rights

In Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District, (ND NY, March 20, 2025), a New York federal district court rejected free exercise and due process challenges to a school district's policy of referring to students by their preferred names and pronouns without informing parents that the district is doing so.  The court said in part:

Mrs. Vitsaxaki asserts that her free exercise of religion was substantially burdened when she was unable to direct the upbringing and education of her child to “counteract” the school district’s implicit messaging that “people can change their sex.” ...

Mrs. Vitsaxaki asserts that the district’s actions taken pursuant to the Policy— permitting Doe to use a preferred names and pronouns and to receive school counseling regarding gender identity questions—were in direct contradiction of her religious views concerning gender and biological sex....

... [A] Policy that permits students to use preferred names and pronouns cannot be said to promote or endorse a religious message nor establish a particular religious practice.  Nor does Mrs. Vitsaxaki allege that it does.  Mrs. Vitsaxaki merely alleges that the choices available to students who choose to take advantage of the Policy runs afoul of her own religious beliefs....

... [T]he Court is satisfied that the Policy, which enables students to use their preferred name and/or pronouns is rationally related to the school district’s legitimate interest in promoting a safe learning environment for its students. ...

Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the school infringed her parental rights, the court said in part: 

... [W]ithin the Second Circuit, the scope of parental rights has been limited in the education context.  Most recently, ..., the Second Circuit held that “there is not a parental right, absent a violation of the Religion Clauses, to ‘direct how a public school teaches their child.’”  ...

... Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s verified complaint—and copies of the Policy...—describe a Policy that operates more like a civility code that extends the kind of decency students should expect at school: such as being called the name they ask to be called.  This strikes at the heart of the subject and manner of instruction a school district is entitled to implement for its students....

... Mrs. Vitsaxaki does not plausibly allege that the district diagnosed or treated Doe or that the district violated her right to make healthcare decisions on Doe’s behalf.   

Simply put, she remained free to exercise her parent rights at home.

Missouri Regulation of Church-Run Child Care Homes Upheld

In CNS International Ministries, Inc. v. Bax, (ED MO, March 3, 2025), a Missouri federal district court rejected a series of challenges to Missouri's Residential Care Facility Notification Act. The Act requires disclosures, background checks, recordkeeping, and health and safety standards for residential care facilities housing children that are run by religious organizations. In particular CNS objected to background checks that disqualified two of its employees. Among other things, the court concluded that the statute did not infringe CNS's 1st Amendment right to expressive association, saying in part:

Under the statute and its regulations, members of CNSIMI have the potential to be excluded from HCYH, one of CNSIMI’s programs and not its entire ministry.  Plaintiff has not established partial exclusion from HCYH would amount to a significant burden on its right to freedom of association.  But even if partial exclusion were a significant burden, the Court finds the State has a compelling interest in protecting children who are residents of LERCFs, and the RCFNA’s disclosure and background check requirements are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest....

Rejecting plaintiff's parental rights argument, the court said in part:

Under Pierce, parents cannot be compelled to send their children to public schools; they have a fundamental right to choose a private school....  Parents, however, do not have a fundamental right to send their children to a private school free of state regulation, including reasonable background check requirements.  ...

Rejecting CNS's ministerial exception argument, the court said in part:

CNSIMI does not claim that any of its “ministers” have been deemed to be ineligible for employment or presence at HCYH.  It is undisputed that two CNSIMI employees did not meet RCFNA’s background check requirements, but Plaintiff does not argue that these two employees – one who was a janitor and the other who was a cafeteria worker – meet the functional requirements of a “minister.”... Furthermore, the Court declines to make a blanket determination that CNSIMI’s teachers, house parents, administrators, and board members qualify under the ministerial exception without evidence as to how specific individuals perform these jobs....

Parent May Proceed on Some Challenges to School's Policy on Transgender Students

In Landerer v. Dover Area School District, (MD PA, Feb. 13, 2025), a mother challenged a school board's policy Directive that prohibits parental notification without student consent when a student asks to socially transition and be called by a different name or pronouns. The court held that plaintiff lacked standing to obtain injunctive or declaratory relief because she had withdrawn her children from the Dover School District. The court also dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim, saying in part:

... [T]he policy here is rationally related to the legitimate interest of protecting transgender students. Even though the policy is alleged by Plaintiff to impact or burden her religious beliefs, the Directive survives rational basis review.

The court however refused to dismiss plaintiff's claim that a teacher interfered with her right to direct the care (including medical and mental health care), custody and control of her child. It also refused to dismiss plaintiff's claim that she was denied procedural due process because the Directive failed to provide for notice to parents of their children's request to use a different name and pronoun. The court allowed plaintiff to proceed only against the school board and not against the individual defendants on these claims because of qualified immunity.

Cert. Granted on Whether Opt-Out is Required When Parent Objects on Religious Grounds to Public School Curricular Material

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Mahmoud v. Taylor, (Docket No. 24-297, certiorari granted 1/17/2025). (Order List.) The question presented to the Court in the Petition for Certiorari is:

Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?

In the case, the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education adopted certain LGBTQ-Inclusive Books as part of a larger array of books for use by English Language Arts teachers. An initial arrangement allowing parents to opt their children out of exposure to these books was ended by the Board.

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a free exercise violation occurs only when there is some sort of direct or indirect pressure to change religious beliefs or conduct, and that mere presence in the classroom when these materials may be read does not create that kind of coercion. (See prior posting.) 

CBS News reports on the Court's action.

Challenges to School Policy on Disclosure of Gender Identity Change May Move Ahead

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Jan. 7, 2025), a California federal district court denied motions to dismiss a suit brought by teachers and parents challenging a policy of the state board of education that schools are not to disclose a student's announced change of gender identity to the student's parents without the student's consent. The policy is intended to protect student privacy.  Among other challenges, plaintiffs claimed that the policy violates their 1st Amendment free exercise and free speech rights. The court said in part:

According to the Complaint, the policies force parents to accede to a school’s plan to neither acknowledge nor disclose information about their child’s gender dysphoria.  By concealing a child’s gender health issues from the parents, parents are precluded from exercising their religious obligations to raise and care for their child at a time when it may be highly significant, because they are kept uninformed of the need for their child’s religious guidance.  “....

... Teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.  To the extent that teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD has hired their speech to speak falsely or deceptively to parents of students, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  Likewise, to the extent teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD’s curriculum includes what the teachers sincerely believe to be lies and deceptions for communications with school parents and that such prevarications are religiously or morally offensive, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.  EUSD contends that it is not a lie to not answer a question.  That the teachers sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary cannot be simply dismissed....

There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.  This Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.  Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and the motions to dismiss are denied.

Ohio Legislature Passes Bill Requiring Released Time Programs and Providing Parents' Bill of Rights

On Dec. 18, the Ohio legislature gave final approval to House Bill 8 (full text) which includes a Parents' Bill of Rights and a provision requiring school boards to adopt a released time program, defined as "a period of time during which a student is excused from school to attend a course in religious instruction conducted by a private entity off school district property." Ohio law has previously made released time programs permissible rather than mandatory. The bill also adds a provision requiring schools to cooperate with sponsoring entities to identify a time during the school day for released time programs.

The parental rights portions of the bill include provisions requiring that parents be given the opportunity to review any instructional material that includes sexuality content. No sexuality instruction is permitted before 4th grade.  The bill also requires notification to parents of changes in counseling services provided to their children, including any request by a student to identify as a gender that does not align with the student's biological sex. Numerous provisions call for parental involvement in other health care services provided by schools to their children. Once the legislature forwards the bill to the governor, he will have 10 days to sign or veto the bill. Ohio Capital Journal reports on the bill. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Dispute Over Standing to Challenge School Gender Identity Support Policy

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin, (Sup. Ct., certiorari denied 12/9/2024). In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parents' organization lacked standing to challenge a school district's policy on Gender Identity Support for students. The Supreme Court denied certiorari over the dissents of Justices Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas.  In a dissenting opinion written by Justice Alito and joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito said in part:

This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents’ “fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of ” their children ... when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process. We are told that more than 1,000 districts have adopted such policies....

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....

Advocate reports on the Court's action.

Missouri AG Issues Opinion on Which Abortion Restrictions Remain Enforceable After Reproductive Freedom Amendment

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has issued Opinion Letter No. 22-2024, (Nov. 22, 2024) outlining the extent to which the state's restrictive abortion laws are still enforceable after voter adoption of a state constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights. The Opinion Letter was requested by Missouri Governor-Elect Mike Kehoe. The Attorney General's Opinion Letter reads in part:

... Amendment 3 was adopted-- just barely-- by a margin of 3%. In a contest where the "yes:" side was able in effect to rewrite the ballot summary language, receive tens of millions of dollars in funding from out of state, and outspent the "no" side 6 to 1, this tight margin suggests the result may be very different if a future constitutional amendment is put up for a vote.

Nevertheless, until and unless voters have an opportunity to vote again ..., Amendment 3 will render some statutes unenforceable.... Missouri statutes entirely prohibit elective abortions-- i.e., abortions other than those performed because of a medical emergency.... Amendment 3 ... will generally prohibit ... officials from enforcing these provisions....

... [T]here will remain some circumstances where these five statutes are enforceable....

First, under the express terms of the amendment, the government may still protect innocent life after viability....

Second, the Attorney General will continue to enforce these statutes in circumstances where parents do not consent to an adolescent minor obtaining an abortion. Under the U.S. Constitution, parents have a "fundamental right ... to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."... This includes the "right to refuse unwanted medical treatment."... Amendment 3 cannot displace that federal constitutional right....

... [W]hen the Supreme Court reversed the Roe line of cases, ... the court restored longstanding parental rights.

Third... [t]he right of parents to forbid minors from obtaining abortions should not be misunderstood to somehow imply a right to force abortion on minors.

The same is true for adults coerced into abortion.... Amendment 3 does not give abortion clinics a right to perform abortions on women who have been coerced....

Missouri Independent reports on the Attorney General's Opinion Letter. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Transgender Bathroom Access Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local Board of Education, (6th Cir., Docket No. 23-3740). In the case, an Ohio federal district court (see prior posting) dismissed a wide-ranging group of challenges-- including due process, equal protection and free exercise challenges-- to a school board policy allowing students to use school bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. Ohio Capital Journal reports on the oral arguments.

Suit Over Deceptively Promoted School Religious Program Moves Ahead

In Roe v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, (MD LA, Oct. 8, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss many claims brought by high school seniors and their parents asserting violations of the Establishment Clause, infringement of parental rights, sex discrimination, violation of the Louisiana Parents Bill of Rights, negligence, infliction of emotional distress and fraud. According to the court:

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit centers around the overarching allegation that, “[f]or several years going back to at least 2016, [defendants] ... were engaged in a conspiracy to expose public school children to overtly sectarian and religious experiences directly through the East Baton Rouge School System..., often without the knowledge or permission of the students’ parents or guardians.” [They] ...developed a program called ‘Day of Hope’, whereby public school students of the East Baton Rouge School System would be sent to a religious service during school time, chaperoned by EBRSB employees.” ... [Defendants] advertised the 2022 event to parents and students as a ‘College and Career Fair’, providing ‘a college and career fair, breakout sessions, live music, a keynote speaker, free food, and more.’ None of the promotional materials or advertisements for the event provided any obvious religious connection.” Plaintiffs claim that, “[i]n actuality, ‘Day of Hope’ speakers were almost exclusively pastors or other religious speakers who describe their participation in the public school event as ‘worship[]’ and ‘minister[ing] to over 1000 kids’, including hashtags on social media posts describing the event like ‘#GodGetsTheGlory’.” ...

The allegations taken as true suggest coercion as understood by Supreme Court precedent, and the prohibition against this practice was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation....

The Title IX claim focuses primarily on two aspects of the Day of Hope program: 1) transgender and gender non-conforming students were forced into “either male or female segregated gender groups based on their outward appearance and without their consent”; and 2) while the male students engaged in “frivolous recreational activities,” the female students were “exposed to a ‘girls gender talk’ including traumatizing lectures by pastors and other religious figures about virginity, rape, abuse, and suicide, even being told to ‘forgive’ their rapists and abusers.”...

Parents Must Be Given Right to Opt 1st Graders Out of Instruction on Transgender Issues

In a 94-page opinion in Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon School District, (WD PA, Sept. 30, 2024), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that a first-grade teacher violated parents' substantive due process and free exercise rights by introducing students to transgender issues without first giving parents the right to opt their children out of that instruction. The court said in part:

Concerns about undercutting parental authority are heightened when the children are in first grade and the person trying to influence them is their teacher.... The students’ confusion in this case illustrates how difficult it is for a first-grader when a teacher’s instruction conflicts with their Parents’ religious and moral beliefs. The heart of parental authority on matters of the greatest importance within their own family is undermined when a teacher tells first-graders their parents may be wrong about whether the student is a boy or a girl....

... Defendants failed to provide Tatel and Melton notice and the ability to opt their children out of Williams’ transgender agenda, even though Tatel’s and Melton’s objections to the instruction were based on their religious beliefs.  Defendants ratified the lack of parental notice and opt out rights, while providing parental notice and the ability to opt out for numerous other secular or religious reasons.... 

Defendants did not establish a compelling basis for refusing to provide notice and opt out rights for parents of first-graders affected by Williams’ transgender instruction.  ...

Refusing to allow notice and opt outs for religious and fundamental parental rights objections to transgender topics, i.e., forcing young children to be exposed to particular instruction over the objections of unwilling parents, while permitting notice and opt outs for other sensitive topics – is not neutral and constitutes an improper use of governmental authority....

Parents Sue Over School Policy That Places Students Together on Overnight Trips on Basis of Gender Identity

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by parents of Jefferson County, Colorado school children challenging the district's policy of assigning students and counselors on overnight school trips to room together on the basis of shared gender identity rather than biological sex. The complaint (full text) in Wailes v. Jefferson County Public Schools, (D CO, filed 9/4/2024), alleges that the policy violates parents' right to control the upbringing and education of their children, students' right of bodily privacy, and the free exercise rights of both parents and students.  The complaint, which asks that Plaintiff students in the future not be placed in accommodations with transgender students, says in part:

346. Parent Plaintiffs have a sincere religious belief that they must teach their children to practice modesty and protect their children’s modesty. This requires that their children not undress, use the restroom, shower, complete other intimate activities, or share overnight accommodations with the opposite sex. 

347. Parent Plaintiffs have a sincere religious belief that God created all people in His image as male and female. Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:2. 

348. Parent Plaintiffs believe that a person’s sex is binary and fixed at conception. They do not believe a person can change their sex....

412. Student Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs require them to avoid intimate exposure, or the risk of intimate exposure, of their own bodies or intimate activities to the opposite sex.

413. Student Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs also require them to avoid intimate exposure, or the risk of intimate exposure, to the body or intimate activities of someone of the opposite sex....

415. Student Plaintiffs have a sincere religious belief that God created all people in His image as male and female. Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:2. 

416. Student Plaintiffs believe that a person’s sex is binary and fixed at conception. They do not believe a person can change their sex.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Suit Challenges California's Ban on School Parental Notification Requirements as to Gender Transitioning

A school district and parents of school-age children filed suit this week in a California federal district court challenging California's recently-enacted AB 1955.  The statute prohibits school districts from requiring notification of parents when their children are socially transitioning their gender in school, unless the student consents to the disclosure. The complaint (full text) in Chino Valley Unified School District v. Newsom alleges that the statute violates parental rights to control the upbringing of their children and parents' free exercise rights as well as being preempted by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The complaint alleges in part:

The Parent Plaintiffs have each alleged that they are devout Christians who believe God created man and woman as distinct, immutable genders; their religious beliefs require that they be notified if their child requests to socially transition at school so that they may be involved with their child's treatment at school.

ABC News 10 reports on the lawsuit.

Florida Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Care Are Unconstitutional

In Doe v. Ladapo, (ND FL, June 11, 2024), a Florida federal district court in a 105-page opinion held unconstitutional many of the provisions in Florida law that ban gender-affirming care for minors and regulate it for adults. The court, analyzing equal protection and substantive due process challenges, said in part:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear….

For some, the denial that transgender identity is real—the opposition to transgender individuals and to their freedom to live their lives—is not different in kind or intensity from the animus that has attended racism and misogyny, less as time has passed but still today. And some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism or misogyny. Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished. To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice…..

This record includes overwhelming evidence that the House sponsors and a significant number of other House members were motivated by anti-transgender animus. This is clear from their own animus-based statements and from the failure of other members to call them out…..

Banning gender-affirming care for minors across the board in all circumstances, rather than appropriately regulating such care, is not sufficiently related to the legitimate state interest in safeguarding health.  

The ban on care for minors does not survive intermediate scrutiny….

[T]here are some, including the Governor and quite a few members of the Florida Legislature, who believe transgenderism—and thus gender-affirming care—is morally wrong. Enforcing this moral view is not, however, a legitimate state interest that can sustain this statute, even under rational-basis scrutiny….

[W]hether based on morals, religion, unmoored hatred, or anything else, prohibiting or impeding a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest…..

In addition to invalidating the ban on care for minors, the court also struck down various unnecessary limits placed on gender affirming care for adults.

The Hill reports on the decision and says that the state will appeal it.

Supreme Court Denies Review of Standing Decision in Challenge to School's Policy Supporting Transgender Students

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education, (Docket No. 23-601, certiorari denied 5/20/2024) (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision (full text of the Aug. 14, 2023 opinion) held that parents who did not allege a substantial risk of injury lacked standing to challenge school board Guidelines that allowed schools to support transgender students and to withhold information from parents about this when the family is not supportive of the student's gender transition. The district court had upheld the Guidelines. (See prior posting).  SCOTUSblog reports on the denial of certiorari.

South Carolina Legislature Passes Bill Barring Gender Transition Care for Minors and Mandating Schools Notifying Parents

The South Carolina legislature this week gave final passage to H4624 (full text) which prohibits health care professionals from providing puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones or gender reassignment surgery to individuals under 18 years of age. It also bars use of public funds for gender transition procedures and provides:

(A) A nurse, counselor, teacher, principal, or other official or staff at a public school shall not knowingly: (1) encourage or coerce a minor to withhold from the minor's parent or legal guardian the fact that the minor's perception of his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310; or (2) withhold from a minor's parent or legal guardian information related to the minor's perception that his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310.

(B) The principal, vice principal, or counselor at a public school shall immediately notify in writing a minor's parent or legal guardian if the minor: (1) asserts to any school employee that the minor's gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310; or (2) requests a school employee to address a minor using a pronoun or title that does not align with the minor's sex.

The bill now goes to Governor Henry McMaster for his signature. The Hill reports on the passage of the bill.