Education

Oklahoma joins multi-state push for parents’ rights, child safety

September 3, 2025

Ray Carter

The State of Oklahoma is weighing in on two major court cases whose outcomes will impact parents’ rights and child safety in public schools.

In both cases, a large group of attorneys general from across the nation, including Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold parental rights in education and preserve the right of states to prevent males from using the girls’ bathrooms in public schools (and vice versa).

One case, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, involves Ludlow Public School in Massachusetts and parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri. Ludlow school officials promoted “social transitioning” of the couple’s child to live as the opposite sex without informing the parents.

The attorneys general are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case and reverse a U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the school’s policy.

The attorneys general brief noted that Ludlow school officials led the 11-year-old child (referred to as B.F. in the brief) “to share intimate thoughts; encouraged and implemented a new name, pronouns, and bathroom; and cast doubt on the medical care that her parents thought best,” and “orchestrated discussions” with the child “about gender identity behind the parents’ back.” The Ludlow school effectively “socially transitioned” the child “while taking deliberate steps to hide it from her parents,” the officials stated.

“Ludlow’s actions should trigger alarm bells,” the 22 attorneys general stated in their brief. “These secret acts, which contravened the parents’ express instructions, violated the constitutionally sacrosanct parent-child relationship. But rather than answering the alarm, the First Circuit greenlit further public intrusions into that relationship, empowering schools to seize control.”

The attorneys general noted that the Ludlow case is not a national outlier.

“Unfortunately, Ludlow isn’t the only school in America acting outside its delegated authority,” the attorneys general stated. “In fact, an alarming number of schools have engaged in similar conduct over the last few years.”

The brief noted that the actions of Ludlow school officials will impact the child long after she has left the public-school system.

“Encouraging and facilitating a child’s social transition causes long-term effects,” the brief stated. “Common sense suggests that the emotional, physical, and psychological ripple effects of Ludlow’s decision to socially transition B.F. will last for many years—likely the rest of B.F.’s life. Experts say the same.”

The brief argues that school officials exceeded their authority.

“It’s true that Ludlow’s social transition actions took place almost exclusively at school. But a secret, school-created double life will affect an eleven-year-old child’s emotions, thought life, self-identity, and psychology at home and, indeed, anywhere the child goes,” the attorneys general's brief stated. “A day may be temporally split into school time and out-of-school time, but as States know all too well, a child’s home life deeply affects and cannot be hermetically separated from their school life. And a lack of empirical data on ‘school-only’ social transition means the effects of this split-gender approach might manifest in troubling and unexpected ways. That the effects of a child’s secret social transition pervade every aspect of their life suggests this isn’t state power.”

The group also argued that lower courts erred in other ways.

“Remarkably, the First Circuit maintains that social transitioning is not a medical treatment. … But this is false: social transitioning is considered a form of psychological treatment. … And it’s a massively risky treatment at that,” the brief stated. “When fighting the reality of a child’s biological sex, recent reports reveal that social transitioning ‘can concretize gender dysphoria’ and may not even ‘improve[ ] mental health status in the short term.’ Parents are best suited to assess these personal risks and rewards, not school administrators.”

The attorneys general argued that parents’ authority should be prioritized over the wishes of school officials who only oversee a child for a short time.

“Ludlow secretly resolved an important, sensitive, and controversial issue on behalf of the young B.F. in ways that will reverberate throughout B.F.’s entire life,” the attorneys general stated. “Parents, not States, should make those calls.”

The attorneys general submitted their brief on Aug. 21.

Drummond issued a separate statement on the issue.

“Oklahoma parents shouldn’t have to worry if their child’s school is making life-altering decisions behind their back,” Drummond said. “This Massachusetts case represents a dangerous overreach that threatens the sacred bond between parents and children. We’re standing with parents across the state and nation to ensure that public schools support families, not undermine them.”

The other attorneys general involved include officials from West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Guam.

South Carolina School-Bathroom Case

In a second case, 24 attorneys general and legislative leaders from Arizona have filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a South Carolina state law mandating sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers in public schools.

Oklahoma has a similar law, which passed in 2022.

The attorneys general urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Fourth Circuit Court injunction that prevents enforcement of South Carolina’s school bathroom law. The Fourth Circuit case involved a girl who wanted to use the boys’ bathroom at school because she claimed to identify as a male.

“No child who attends public school should have to worry about whether she can safely and privately use the toilet, change her clothes, or shower after practice,” the attorneys general stated in their brief.

The attorneys general said the Fourth Circuit’s ruling does not comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld a Tennessee law prohibiting doctors from providing puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or sex-change surgeries to minors who claim to identify as transgender.

The attorneys general said the court’s logic in Skrmetti applies equally to school-bathroom laws.

“Under the Equal Protection Clause, this should be a simple case. The Fourth Circuit agrees that schools can maintain separate bathrooms for boys and girls. It thus follows that schools can enforce policies providing for single-sex bathrooms against students who would prefer to use a bathroom designated for the opposite sex,” the attorneys general's brief stated. “The Fourth Circuit claims that enforcing such policies against all students offends heightened scrutiny. As this Court’s decision in Skrmetti explains, however, a policy that applies to boys and girls alike does not classify on sex or transgender identity. South Carolina did not draw any impermissible lines when it decided that no one should be able to use a bathroom designated for the opposite sex.”

The attorneys general noted that South Carolina’s law, and others like it, treat all students in an even-handed manner.

“All students are subject to the same treatment. No boy may use a bathroom designated for girls, and no girl may use a bathroom designated for boys,” the brief states. “That is true whether a student identifies as transgender or not. A boy who identifies as a girl can no more use a girl’s bathroom than a boy who identifies as a boy but feels more comfortable around girls or who seeks access for voyeuristic purposes. Simply put, students who identify as transgender are treated no better and no worse than students who identify differently.”

The group argued that a prohibition on the enforcement of South Carolina’s law imposes unreasonable burdens on students, including reduced safety.

“Students must have private spaces that allow them to use the toilet, change, and shower without exposing themselves to the opposite sex—something that the Fourth Circuit’s injunction undermines,” the attorneys general stated.

The brief in the South Carolina case was submitted on Aug. 29.

Along with Oklahoma, officials from Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Arizona signed the brief.