16 AGs Back MA School District's Policy On Student Gender Identity

MASSACHUSETTS — Attorneys general from 16 states — including Massachusetts — have filed a legal brief supporting a local school district's policy that keeps student gender identity information private.

The brief filed this week follows a December federal court ruling where a judge said the Ludlow Public Schools policy did not violate parental civil rights. Two parents sued Ludlow school officials after the district did not tell the parents that their children were struggling with their gender identities, and had chosen to go by different names and pronouns while in school.

After a December ruling dismissed the case, parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri appealed before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The parents argue that issues like gender identity should be dealt with in the home, according to court filings.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell says Ludlow's policy is important during a time when LGBTQ+ people are under threat.

"Schools should be safe for all students, and policies like Ludlow’s protect and support transgender students regardless of their home life," Campbell said in a news release Wednesday. "Especially as LGBTQ+ youth face escalating attacks on their rights and safety, we have a duty to protect the privacy of transgender students when they have the courage to share their identity with a trusted adult."

Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington signed on to the brief.

The brief cites multiple previous federal court cases involving schools, including the landmark

Brown v. Board of Education ruling that desegregated schools.

"The rule suggested by Plaintiffs here — that the Constitution rigidly and mechanistically requires schools to inform parents of conversations with students about gender identity regardless of circumstances against those students’ wills — would interfere with critical functions of public education," the brief says. "Perhaps most important, this rule would chill open communication and damage the trust between students and their teachers, coaches, and guidance counselors."