In a recent development, the Supreme Court has decided not to hear the case involving John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education. This case revolved around Maryland parents who were attempting to sue the school district for its policies regarding gender transition among students without parental consent.

The central issue in the case was whether the parents had the proper standing to file the suit. In August, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the three parents lacked standing to challenge the policy. The court stated that the parents did not allege that their children had gender support plans, were transgender, or struggling with issues of gender identity.

The parents argued that the district's gender identity policy for the 2020-21 academic year enabled the concealment of information about a child's preferred pronouns and gender identity from parents. However, the appeals court denied their standing, leading to the recent decision by the Supreme Court.

Gene Hamilton, the executive director of American First Legal, which filed an amicus brief in the case, expressed his disappointment with federal judges, stating that they are "abjectly failing" in cases that question standing. Hamilton criticized judges for not declaring what the law is and for dismissing cases instead of adjudicating them.

The parents' case initially faced a setback in August 2022 when U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm for the District of Maryland ruled against them. The 4th Circuit upheld this ruling in August, with Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum writing the 2-1 opinion. Quattlebaum emphasized that policy disputes should be addressed to elected policymakers and not to unelected judges.

Kayla Toney, counsel at First Liberty Institute, who also filed an amicus brief in the case, expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court's decision. Toney argued that parental rights are under attack, and policies that keep gender transitions secret from parents are particularly harmful to those with different faith backgrounds.

While the Supreme Court's decision not to take up the case may be seen as a setback for these parents, the broader implications of the court's action on future legal challenges concerning parental rights and gender identity policies remain to be seen.