…Plaintiffs argue that if the District believes a parent holds anti-LGBTQ+ views, the District will not notify that parent if the parent’s child displays any signs of an LGBTQ+ identity. THE [District’s] Supposedly the policies work as follows: The District’s “default” is that it will tell parents everything important about their children, including things related to LGBTQ+ issues. However, there is a “health and safety” exception to this default. Separately, the District labels people who don’t support LGBTQ+ youth as “unsafe.” The plaintiffs argue that when a parent is labeled “unsafe,” the “health and safety” exception applies and, therefore, the parent will not be told important information. Therefore, the plaintiffs argue, if a child reports that he or she is struggling with issues related to the LGBTQ+ community, and if that child’s parent has been labeled “unsafe,” that parent will never be informed of the child’s difficulties.
The plaintiffs allege that these fears came true because one plaintiff, DSDS’s son, who was assigned female at birth, was struggling with mental health issues in his eighth and ninth grades. At one point, employees at the child’s school began using a male name and male pronouns to refer to the child, apparently believing that doing so would help his mental health. DS’s son attempted suicide but, fortunately, survived and received professional mental health treatment. No one at the school told DS that employees were referring to the child with male pronouns, until after the suicide attempt. DS has since removed the child from the District. DS does not say whether the district labeled her “unsafe” or perceived her as having anti-LGBTQ+ views.
Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that school employees may have exposed students to explicit sexual material. Some school employees wore a badge (the “Badge”) that communicates that the wearer supports LGBTQ+ youth. On the back of the badge there is a QR code which, if scanned, recalls resources and materials related to LGBTQ+ issues. At least some of these resources allegedly contain sexually explicit material….
The district plaintiffs … allege that the [District’s] The policies violate several rights: (1) Claim IV, freedom of conscience; (2) Claim V, family integrity; (3) Claim VI, freedom of speech; and (4) Claim VII, due process….
Plaintiffs within the district do not have Article III standing to pursue Claims because they have not asserted a factual injury. To establish de facto harm, the plaintiff must point to harm that is “concrete, that is, real and not abstract.” To reiterate: A”[a]Abstract harm is not sufficient.” Rather, the plaintiff “must demonstrate that he or she has suffered or is immediately at risk of suffering direct harm as a result of the official conduct complained of[.]“If a plaintiff asserts a risk of future harm, he or she must demonstrate that “the threat of harm is real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
The district’s internal plaintiffs’ theory for the claims is this: If the district believes a parent does not support LGBTQ+ youth, the district labels that parent “unsafe.” If the child of an “unsafe” parent expresses or questions an LGBTQ+ identity (or makes statements that suggest mental illness), the District may decide that the parent’s “unsafe” parenting justifies an exception of “health and safety” to the default policy of telling parents important things about their children. If this happens, the District may offer the child mental health treatment without consulting the parents. These actions, the District plaintiffs argue, would violate their rights to freedom of conscience, family integrity, and free speech. Furthermore, because the District supposedly does all of these things under impermissibly vague policies, the District violates parents’ due process rights.
In other words, Self a child expresses or questions his or her LGBTQ+ identity (or shows signs of mental illness) to a school official e Self the parent holds, or is believed to hold, anti-LGBTQ+ views e Self the school knows these points of view and Self the combination of these facts means that the school does not tell parents about comments about the child’s sexual identity and Self the school provides the child with mental health treatment without the consent or knowledge of the parents, Then Parental rights are violated because the parent is being “punished” for his or her beliefs and words, is deprived of the ability to make important decisions about the child’s health, and has suffered these deprivations under impermissibly vague policies.
The number of “ifs” in the previous paragraph shows why Interdistrict Plaintiffs are not entitled. The plaintiffs within the district do not allege that their children have told or will tell the school that they are (or may be) LGBTQ+ or that the children show signs of mental illness. Because plaintiffs within the district have not plausibly alleged that their children have reported or will report such problems to school officials, they have likewise not plausibly alleged that they will suffer harm because of what the district may do in response to this report.
Nor do the District plaintiffs claim to have (or are believed to have) anti-LGBTQ+ views. True, plaintiffs within the district claim to have received “backlash” for filing this lawsuit, but they do not explain what that reaction consists of or, more importantly, whether that reaction includes being perceived by the district as having anti-LGBTQ+ opinions . In fact, the plaintiffs argue that backlash is Not coming from the District but instead comes from “some activists in the community.” Accordingly, Plaintiffs in the District have not plausibly alleged that they have been or will be labeled “unsafe” or, by extension, that they will suffer any injury resulting from the manner in which where the District interacts with parents it deems “unsafe.”
Likewise, the plaintiffs in the district have not claimed to do anything else that would earn them the “unsafe” label. One of the district’s internal plaintiffs’ theories is that the district could decide that a parent is “unsafe” because of his or her religion, political views, or associations, and that this decision (and its consequences) would violate First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs within the district do not assert that they have any religious or political opinions, associations, or anything else that would lead the district to believe they are “unsafe” or otherwise anti-LGBTQ+. Nor have Plaintiffs stated that they want to participate in any of these things but are dissuaded from doing so by District Policies. Therefore, since the district plaintiffs did not assert this They engaging in, or intending to engage in, any First Amendment activity that would cause the District to label them “unsafe,” have not reported any harm related thereto.
In summary, because the District plaintiffs do not allege that their children told, nor that they will, or even May—tell school officials that they are LGBTQ+ or are exhibiting symptoms of mental illness and, because Plaintiffs within the district do not claim to have opinions or participate in activities that would earn them the “Unsafe” label, Plaintiffs within the district do not allege a factual injury….
Plaintiffs in the district [also] request an injunction from the District to allow school employees to wear the Badge. The district plaintiffs apparently fear their children will scan the QR code and be exposed to sexually explicit material.
However, Plaintiffs in the district do not state whether any of their children’s teachers, or anyone in their children’s schools, wear the Badge. Nor did the plaintiffs in the district say they have any reason to believe their children will scan the QR code if they see a badge. Therefore, the District Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged any risk that their children will be exposed to sexually explicit material because of the Badge….
DS is making three claims for damages arising from the District’s handling of her son’s mental health issues. In two of these charges, DS alleges that the defendants violated DS’s constitutional rights to family integrity and freedom of conscience; DS also states intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants do not intend to dismiss these claims and, therefore, proceed.
However, DS also asserts numerous claims of a declaratory and injunctive nature (the “Potential Claims”). In these claims, DS seeks a declaration that the defendants violated DS’s rights to freedom of conscience, family integrity, free speech, and due process, and asks the Court to enjoin some of the conduct and policies allegedly illicit.
To the extent that the potential claims are not a duplication of DS’s first three claims, they must be rejected for lack of standing. Declaratory relief and injunctive relief are both forms of potential relief..S. she has removed her son from the District and, therefore, there is no risk that the Policies will cause future harm (or effects of any kind) to DS or her son. As a result, DS lacks the capacity to seek possible relief….