Parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri sued the Ludlow School Committee, School administrators, and individual educators, alleging that the School violated their constitutional rights by using their child’s preferred name and gender pronouns at school without informing them. The case centered on the School’s “protocol,” which required staff to respect a student’s gender identity at school while withholding this information from parents unless the student consented.
The dispute began during the 2020-21 school year when B.F., the parents’ eleven-year-old child, began questioning their gender identity after watching LGBTQ-related videos suggested by the School-issued computer. Later that year, B.F. confided in a teacher about feelings of depression and struggles with self-image. The teacher notified the child’s mother, who appreciated the outreach and requested that no further private conversations take place between School staff and the child about mental health matters.
Unbeknownst to the parents, in February 2021, B.F. sent an email to teachers and staff announcing a gender identity change and requesting to be referred to by a new name and pronouns. The School counselor met privately with B.F. and directed School staff to use the student’s chosen name and pronouns in school but to revert to the birth name and assigned gender when communicating with the parents.
The parents discovered the change in March 2021 when a teacher disclosed the information. Concerned that School officials had intentionally concealed their child’s gender identity, they confronted the School about the lack of notification. The School, in response, defended its policy by citing guidance from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, which recommended that schools respect a student’s asserted gender identity while avoiding disclosure to parents unless the student consented. The superintendent and other officials justified the policy as necessary to ensure a safe and inclusive learning environment, particularly for students who might face rejection or harm at home due to their gender identity.
The parents sued Ludlow, the School Committee, and individual educators in federal court, alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they claimed that the School’s actions interfered with their fundamental right to direct their child’s upbringing, usurped their authority over medical and mental health decisions, and violated their familial privacy rights.
The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the parents failed to state a claim because the School’s actions did not constitute medical treatment and failed to meet the constitutional threshold of conduct that “shocked the conscience,” which is required to establish a substantive due process violation. The parents appealed.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The clause protects against government infringement of both procedural and substantive rights. The parents argued that the School’s conduct restricted their parental right to control the upbringing, custody, education, and medical treatment of their child.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that parents have a longstanding constitutional right to direct their child’s upbringing. However, the Court emphasized that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the state’s interest in protecting students.
The parents argued that social transitioning—using a student’s chosen name and pronouns—constituted medical treatment, and that the School improperly provided mental health treatment without parental consent. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding that using a preferred name and pronouns did not qualify as medical treatment. The Court distinguished this case from precedents involving medical procedures, such as Parham v. J.R., which involved the institutionalization of a child for mental health treatment. It found no evidence that Ludlow engaged in any clinical intervention, ruling that affirming a student’s gender identity at school did not require parental authorization.
The parents next argued that Ludlow’s educators interfered with their parental rights by facilitating their child’s social transition through curricular and administrative decisions, including a librarian’s assignment on pronouns, teachers’ use of the student’s chosen name, and a counselor’s guidance on bathroom access. The Court rejected this claim, too, emphasizing that public schools have broad discretion over curriculum and student interactions and that the Due Process Clause does not grant parents the right to control educational policies. The Court distinguished this case from prior cases, noting that those prior decisions protected parents’ right to choose an educational program, not to dictate a school’s curriculum. Because Ludlow’s actions fell within its authority to foster an inclusive learning environment, the Court found no constitutional violation.
The parents further claimed that the School actively misled them by using different names and pronouns at school and at home, thus interfering with their parental authority. The Court of Appeals found this argument unpersuasive, distinguishing the case from others where schools actively concealed medical interventions. Unlike cases where schools coerced students into medical procedures without parental knowledge, Ludlow’s policy simply honored the student’s request for privacy regarding gender identity. The Court determined that non-disclosure alone did not amount to a constitutional violation and that parents remained free to engage with their child on these issues outside of school.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, ruling that Ludlow’s policy did not violate the parents’ constitutional rights.
Foote v. Ludlow Sch. Comm. (1st Cir. 2025) __ F.4th __ [2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3979].
Note: Although this case involved a public school, the arguments raised may be relevant for private schools navigating similar situations. There is likely to be further developments regarding gender identity policies following President Trump’s recent executive orders, and LCW will monitor these matters for further updates.