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.
On March 3, 2026, petitioners filed a supplemental brief in Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, shortly after the case was distributed for the March 6 conference. That filing follows multiple reschedules since December 2025, a pattern suggesting the Court is weighing this petition carefully, possibly in coordination with the related petition in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, No. 25-77, which raises the same underlying parental-rights question.
The Littlejohns allege that a Leon County school socially transitioned their child to a different gender identity without notifying them, in accordance with a district policy designed to exclude parents in certain circumstances. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed their claim at the threshold, holding that because the parents challenged past executive conduct rather than a legislative policy, they had to satisfy the “shocks the conscience” standard rather than the ordinary strict-scrutiny framework applicable to fundamental rights. The panel ruled against the Littlejohns on that threshold ground, though Judge Newsom joined only because he felt bound to do so, writing that the result “makes no sense.”
The threshold issue is analytically distinct from, and potentially broader than, the gender-transition question. The Court would need to resolve whether plaintiffs alleging infringement of a fundamental right by executive actors must clear the “shocks the conscience” bar, and what conduct even qualifies as “executive.” Both questions currently divide the circuits. Petitioner Cameron Thomas Norris argues that applying a heightened pleading threshold to fundamental-rights claims effectively insulates a broad category of government conduct from meaningful judicial review.
With twelve amicus briefs filed and multiple conferences logged, the Court’s deliberation appears substantive. A grant here could allow the Court to address the standard-of-review circuit split while holding the parental-rights merits for a future case. Observers should watch whether the Court grants, holds pending Foote, or calls for the views of the Solicitor General. The official docket will reflect any such order promptly after the March 6 conference.