2026年4月20日 下午1:52 UTC / 路透社
作者：安德鲁·钟
2026年4月20日 下午1:52 UTC 更新于1小时前
节点运行失败
2026年3月14日拍摄的美国华盛顿特区最高法院大楼。路透社/威尔·邓哈姆/档案照片 购买授权，打开新标签页
- 摘要
- 家长称校方隐瞒学生性别身份
- 下级法院裁决家长权利未受侵犯
- 家长称学校违反其宪法权利
4月20日（路透社）——美国最高法院周一拒绝受理一起家长提起的诉讼，该诉讼指控马萨诸塞州一所公立学区的教师和工作人员在未征得学生同意的情况下，不向家长透露学生的姓名或代词变更，以此支持学生的性别认同。
大法官们驳回了马萨诸塞州勒德洛市一所中学一名学生家长的上诉。该学生在校期间自称“性别酷儿”，此前下级法院驳回了他们的诉讼。
通过《每日案卷》时事通讯将最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，开启您的清晨。点击此处订阅。
广告 · 滚动继续
原告方声称，校方将他们的孩子视为非二元性别者，并隐瞒这一信息，这违反了他们作为父母的基本权利，而这一权利受美国宪法第十四修正案的正当程序条款保护。
此案正值最高法院3月2日作出一项重要裁决之后，该裁决阻止了加利福尼亚州类似的措施——这类措施可能会限制学校在未经学生允许的情况下向家长透露跨性别公立学校学生的性别身份信息。
全美各地正在就支持和保护跨性别及非二元性别学生隐私的举措展开争议。最高法院2024年驳回了威斯康星州和马里兰州类似的诉讼。
拥有6票保守派多数席位的最高法院，还正面临唐纳德·特朗普政府和共和党领导的州为限制跨性别者权利而不断升级的举措。2025年6月，最高法院维持了田纳西州一项共和党支持的禁令，禁止为跨性别未成年人提供变性医疗服务。今年1月，最高法院似乎准备支持禁止跨性别运动员参加女子运动队的州法律，相关裁决仍在等待中。
马萨诸塞州的家长斯蒂芬·富特和玛丽莎·西尔维斯特里在法庭文件中称，勒德洛市贝尔德中学的教师和工作人员在家长不知情的情况下向孩子灌输“性别意识形态”。原告方表示，他们11岁的孩子“B.F.”因此开始质疑自己的性别认同。
根据法庭文件，这名学生在要求教师和工作人员使用新名字和代词后，还要求学校官员在与家长沟通时继续使用孩子的原名和女性代词。
这名学生的身份是性别酷儿，即不遵循男性-女性二元性别规范的人。
家长们起诉了该市、勒德洛学校委员会和部分官员，称他们的行为侵犯了他们依据第十四修正案享有的正当程序权利，而最高法院长期以来一直认为该条款保护父母指导孩子照料和养育的基本权利。
家长们表示，所谓的“性别转变”是有害的，他们的反对是基于道德而非宗教。他们在最高法院的代理律师是保守派基督教法律团体“联盟保卫自由”。
一名联邦法官于2022年驳回了此案。总部位于波士顿的美国第一巡回上诉法院2025年维持了驳回裁决，认定家长未能充分证明其父母权利受到剥夺，包括指导孩子医疗护理的权利。
第一巡回法院表示，“并不相信仅仅指控勒德洛学校使用变性认可的代词或变性认可的姓名，就足以构成学校为学生提供医疗治疗的诉讼理由”。
第一巡回法院称，校方尊重学生关于是否向家长披露其性别身份的意愿，让孩子们“能够表达自己的身份，而不必担心家长的反对”，并补充说，该协议不会强迫学生隐瞒信息，也不会限制家长在校外的行为。
“家长仍然可以自由地按照自己的信仰塑造孩子，”第一巡回法院表示。
安德鲁·钟在纽约报道；威尔·邓哈姆编辑
我们的标准：汤森路透信托原则，打开新标签页
US Supreme Court rejects Massachusetts school gender-identity policy challenge
2026-04-20 1:52 PM UTC / Reuters
By Andrew Chung
April 20, 2026 1:52 PM UTC Updated 1 hour ago
节点运行失败
A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 14, 2026. REUTERS/Will Dunham/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
- Officials concealed student’s gender identity, parents say
- Lower court ruled that parental rights not undermined
- Parents say school violated their constitutional rights
April 20 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a bid by parents to sue a public school district in Massachusetts over actions by teachers and officials to support the gender identity of students by not disclosing name or pronoun changes to parents without the child’s consent.
The justices turned away an appeal by the parents of a student who had self-identified as “genderqueer” while attending a middle school in the Massachusetts town of Ludlow after a lower court threw out their lawsuit.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The plaintiffs claimed officials treated their child as nonbinary and hid this information from them in violation of their fundamental parental rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment promise of due process.
The case comes in the wake of a significant decision by the court on March 2 to block similar measures in California that could limit the sharing of information with parents about the gender identity of transgender public school students without the child’s permission.
Disputes over efforts to support and protect the privacy of transgender and gender non-conforming students are playing out across the United States. The court in 2024 turned away similar challenges in Wisconsin and Maryland.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is also confronting escalating efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration and Republican-led states to restrict the rights of transgender people. In June 2025, the court upheld a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. In January, the court also appeared ready to uphold state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams, with a ruling still pending on that matter.
The Massachusetts parents, Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri, said in court papers that teachers and officials at Baird Middle School in Ludlow pushed “gender ideology” on children without the knowledge of parents. As a result, the plaintiffs said, their 11-year-old child, known as “B.F.,” began to question the student’s gender identity.
After asking teachers and staff to use a new name and pronoun, the student also asked school officials to continue to use the child’s original name and female pronouns when communicating with the parents, according to court filings.
The child identified as genderqueer, meaning a person who does not follow binary gender male-female norms.
The parents sued the town, the Ludlow School Committee and certain officials, saying their actions undermined their 14th Amendment due process rights, which the Supreme Court has long held protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children.
The parents said that “so-called gender transition” is harmful and that theirs is a moral objection, not a religious one. They are being represented at the Supreme Court by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative Christian legal group.
A federal judge threw out the case in 2022. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal in 2025, concluding that the parents had not sufficiently shown a deprivation of their parental rights, including to direct the medical care of their child.
The 1st Circuit said it was “unconvinced that merely alleging Ludlow’s use of gender-affirming pronouns or a gender-affirming name suffices to state a claim that the school provided medical treatment to the student.”
The deference by school officials to the wishes of students about whether to disclose their gender identity to parents allows the children to “express their identity without worrying about parental backlash,” the 1st Circuit said, adding that the protocol does not coerce students to conceal information or restrain the actions of parents outside of school.
“Parents remain free to strive to mold their child according to the parents’ own beliefs,” the 1st Circuit said.
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab