Case: January Littlejohn, et vir v. School Board of Leon County, Florida, et al., No. 25-259
Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2025-09-05
Status: Pending
Question Presented: Whether a public school "violates parents' fundamental constitutional right " when it secretly helps "transition " their child to a new "gender " is "a question of great and growing national importance." Parents Protecting Our Child. v. Eau Claire ASD , 145 S.Ct. 14 (2024) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (cleaned up). Another petition raising that question is currently before this Court in Foote v. Ludlow Sch ool Comm ittee, No. 25-77.
The Court distributed Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County for its April 17, 2026 conference, the latest in a series of reconfigurations stretching back to mid-March. The Supreme Court docket shows the case has been rescheduled multiple times, a pattern that typically reflects either active deliberation among the Justices or coordination with a related pending petition.
The underlying dispute began when the Littlejohns alleged that a Leon County school facilitated their child’s social gender transition without parental knowledge or consent. The Eleventh Circuit ruled on a threshold ground: because the parents challenged the school’s past application of a policy rather than the policy itself, the court characterized the conduct as “executive” rather than “legislative.” Under that framing, the parents were required to show the conduct “shocked the conscience.” The panel majority applied that demanding standard; though Judge Newsom felt bound to join the 2-1 decision, he agreed the result “makes no sense.” The full lower court record is available on CourtListener.
The petition thus presents two layered questions. The first is whether the “shocks the conscience” standard applies when a plaintiff alleges infringement of a fundamental right by an executive actor. The second is the parental rights question itself. Both issues carry circuit splits, and supplemental briefs were filed by both sides on March 9, possibly addressing developments in the companion case Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, No. 25-77.
The repeated rescheduling and twelve amicus briefs indicate the Justices are treating this petition with care. If the Court grants certiorari, it could resolve the standard for fundamental-rights claims against executive actors well beyond the school-transition context. Petitioner is represented by Cameron Thomas Norris; respondents by Jeffrey Douglas Slanker.