Lee v. Poudre School Dist. R–1

1 Cite as: 607 U. S. ____ (2025)
Statement of A
LITO, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JONATHAN LEE, ET AL. v. POUDRE
SCHOOL DISTRICT R–1
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 25–89. Decided October 14, 2025
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of J
USTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE
THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, respecting the denial
of certiorari.
I concur in the denial of certiorari because petitioners do
not challenge the ground for the ruling below. But I remain
concerned that some federal courts are “tempt[ed]” to avoid
confronting a “particularly contentious constitutional ques-
tio[n]”: whether a school district violates parents’ funda-
mental rights “when, without parental knowledge or con-
sent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender
or assists in that process.” Parents Protecting Our Chil-
dren, UA v. Eau Claire Area School Dist., 604 U. S. ___,
___–___ (2024) (A
LITO, J., dissenting from denial of certio-
rari) (slip op., at 1–2) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U. S.
57, 70 (2000) (plurality opinion)). Petitioners tell us that
nearly 6,000 public schools have policies—as respondent al-
legedly does—that purposefully interfere with parents’ ac-
cess to critical information about their children’s gender-
identity choices and school personnel’s involvement in and
influence on those choices. Pet. for Cert. 24. The trou-
bling—and tragic—allegations in this case underscore the
“great and growing national importance” of the question
that these parent petitioners present. Parents Protecting
Our Children, 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1).