The court held that the mother, Jane Doe, has Article III standing to pursue monetary damages because she was an object of the challenged policy while her child was enrolled in the district.
However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Doe’s claims for prospective relief, ruling that she lacks standing because her child is no longer enrolled and she has not alleged a substantial risk of future harm.
The dispute centers on Administrative Regulation 103(B), which the Pine Richland School District adopted in 2017. The policy declares it district policy to provide equal opportunity for all students regardless of gender identity and protects the privacy of a student’s transgender status.
Under the policy, district personnel are prohibited from disclosing a student’s transgender status to parents or guardians unless legally required or authorized by the student. The policy also mandates Student Support Teams to assist transgender students and manage transitions during the school year.
Jane Doe’s child attended a district school for the 2023–2024 academic year. Doe sued in January 2024, alleging that the policy violated her substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and federal statutes protecting parental rights to inspect instructional materials.
Doe sent a written demand that the district notify her within three days of learning about any matters related to gender identity or dysphoria involving her child. The district refused, citing the policy’s confidentiality requirements.
In May 2024, the District Court denied Doe’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding she lacked Article III standing. Doe voluntarily dismissed that appeal after withdrawing her child from the district and enrolling them in parochial school.
Doe later filed a supplemental complaint alleging she would consider re-enrolling her child if the policy were repealed or enjoined. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of standing, adopting its earlier analysis.
The Third Circuit reversed in part, relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta. The high court previously indicated that parents who are objects of exclusionary gender-transition policies likely have standing to pursue relief.
The Third Circuit held that Doe demonstrated a concrete, particularized injury during the 2023–2024 school year when she was subject to the policy and demanded it not be applied to her child. This past injury supports standing for retrospective damages.
Conversely, the court found Doe’s claims for prospective relief failed because she withdrew her child before filing the supplemental complaint. The court ruled that Doe’s allegation that she would only "consider" re-enrolling her child was too speculative to establish a substantial risk of future harm.
The court modified the District Court’s order, dismissing the claims for prospective relief without prejudice to preserve jurisdictional flexibility. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s ruling on standing.