Case: International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc., et al. v. Bob Ferguson, Governor of Washington, et al., No. 25-840
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2026-01-15
Status: Pending
Question Presented: Whether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decision making role as to "gender transitions" of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them.
The Court distributed this petition for its March 20, 2026 conference, and Washington Governor Bob Ferguson has since moved for an extension of time to respond, with a response now due March 30. That sequence suggests the Court may hold the petition pending receipt of the state’s views before deciding whether to grant certiorari. The case arrives from the Ninth Circuit.
The petitioners, a coalition of organizations and parents, challenged a Washington law they contend systematically removes parents from decisions about their minor children’s gender transition care. The question presented is framed narrowly around Article III standing rather than the merits of parental rights, asking whether the alleged displacement of parental decision-making constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to get into federal court.
That framing is deliberate and legally significant. By centering the petition on standing, petitioners invite the Court to address whether interference with a fundamental liberty interest in parenting can itself constitute concrete injury. The nineteen amicus briefs filed in this case, from organizations including the Manhattan Institute and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, reflect the breadth of interest in how the Court might define the injury threshold in family-autonomy disputes. The full docket is available on CourtListener.
If the Court grants review, it would have an opportunity to clarify standing doctrine in a context where parental rights intersect with state authority over minors’ healthcare. Even a denial would carry weight, as lower courts continue to divide over how to assess injury when a state policy structurally excludes parents rather than directly prohibiting their conduct. The standing question here is analytically distinct from the underlying merits, and the Court’s treatment of it will matter well beyond this particular dispute.