Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, 128 F.4th 336

Ludlow School Committee in Massachusetts adopted an unwritten protocol based on state guidance, directing school staff not to notify parents when a student requests to use a different name or pronouns at school, unless the student consents.
Parents of a sixth-grade student, who began expressing genderqueer identity at school but not at home, objected to the school using the student’s chosen name and pronouns without their knowledge.
The parents claimed this protocol interfered with their constitutional right to direct their child’s upbringing, including medical and mental health decisions.
The parents sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting substantive due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The district court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim, and this decision was appealed to the First Circuit.
On de novo review, the First Circuit analyzed the claims as a challenge to a legislative policy (school protocol), not individual executive acts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the protocol's use of chosen names/pronouns is "medical treatment" requiring parental consent	Affirming a child's gender identity at school is mental health treatment	School actions are not medical or clinical interventions, just supportive conduct	Use of names/pronouns is not medical treatment; claim dismissed
Parental right to control curricular and administrative decisions	Parents must consent to discussions and support for gender identity at school	Schools have broad discretion over curriculum and administration	Parents cannot dictate curricular/admin choices; claim dismissed
Protocol’s nondisclosure violates parental right to information about child's gender expression	Protocol intentionally keeps parents in the dark, hindering their ability to guide child	Nondisclosure protects student safety and autonomy, no coercion or deception alleged	Nondisclosure does not restrict a fundamental right; claim dismissed
Constitutionality of the Protocol under substantive due process	Protocol restricts parents’ right to direct child’s upbringing	Protocol is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in student safety	Protocol survives rational basis review; no constitutional violation

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (recognizes parental right to direct education)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (affirms parental right to direct upbringing/education)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (identifies fundamental rights of parental direction)
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (parents have right to direct medical care for children)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (rational basis review for equal protection)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (outlines substantive due process framework)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (limits government affirmative duties under due process)