Parents for Privacy v. William Barr
18-35708
9th Cir.Feb 12, 2020Background
- Dallas School District No. 2 adopted a "Student Safety Plan" after a biologically female student publicly identified as male and sought to use boys’ locker room and bathrooms; the Plan permitted transgender students to use facilities matching their gender identity and provided staff training and alternative privacy options.
- Some cisgender students and parents objected, alleging embarrassment, anxiety, and conflict with religious/moral beliefs; petitions and school-board protests followed.
- Plaintiffs (Parents for Privacy and individual parents/students) sued the District and federal officials asserting claims under the Fourteenth Amendment (privacy and parental rights), Title IX, and the First Amendment (free exercise), among others.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims with prejudice (Rule 12(b)(6)); Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the denial of leave to amend.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held no cognizable Fourteenth Amendment privacy right to avoid exposure to transgender peers in school facilities, Title IX was not violated, parental rights did not encompass dictating school bathroom policy, and the Plan did not violate free exercise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourteenth Amendment — Privacy | Plaintiffs: students have a fundamental right to bodily/privacy protection from exposure to opposite-biological-sex persons in restrooms/locker rooms. | District: no established fundamental right applies; alternatives and modest privacy measures were provided. | No fundamental privacy right extending that far; claim dismissed. |
| Title IX — Hostile Environment | Plaintiffs: allowing transgender students into opposite- sex facilities creates sexual harassment/hostile environment based on sex. | District: policy is sex‑neutral (applies equally), seeks to avoid discrimination, and mere presence is not actionable harassment. | Policy does not discriminate on basis of sex nor create actionable Title IX harassment; claim dismissed. |
| Fourteenth Amendment — Parental Rights | Parents: fundamental right to direct upbringing includes controlling school bathroom policies and shielding children from opposite‑sex exposure. | District: parental rights do not permit dictating public school administration or policies once children attend school. | Parental right does not encompass forcing school bathroom policy; claim dismissed. |
| First Amendment — Free Exercise | Plaintiffs: Plan substantially burdens religiously motivated modesty beliefs (must choose between faith and school). | District: Plan is neutral and generally applicable; justified by legitimate/safety and anti-discrimination interests. | Plan is neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to legitimate interests; free exercise claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (framework for identifying fundamental rights under Due Process Clause)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX hostile‑environment standard: severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive deprivation of educational access)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 897 F.3d 518 (3d Cir. 2018) (rejecting expansive constitutional privacy right to bar transgender students from sex‑segregated facilities)
- Whitaker ex rel. Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) (transgender student restroom access does not violate privacy rights)
- Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2005) (limits on parental right to control public school curriculum/administration)
- Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws need only rational basis re: free exercise)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law targeting religious practice is not neutral or generally applicable)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead plausible claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth on motion to dismiss)
- York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1963) (police intrusion and distribution of nude photos distinguished from school‑facility presence)