Judge Issues Injunction: Madison School District Staff Cannot Lie or Deceive Parents About Gender Transitions at School
WILL sued MMSD for violating parental rights with gender identity policy
The News: Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank Remington issued an injunction last week in a WILL parental rights lawsuit that forbids Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) employees from lying or deceiving parents about the gender identity that their child may have adopted at school. The lawsuit is ongoing, but the injunction goes into effect immediately as the case is under consideration.
The Quote: Deputy Counsel Luke Berg said, “We are pleased Judge Remington issued this injunction that will require honesty when Madison Metropolitan School District staff interact with parents about critical matters impacting their child’s health and wellbeing. This is an important win for parental rights as the court considers this matter.”
WILL’s lawsuit also argues that the District may not enable a gender identity transition at school without parental notice and consent, but the Court declined to rule on that issue either way at this stage of the litigation. Still, the Court’s ruling sends a clear warning message to the District that its policy is problematic, and that parents can expect transparency and honesty from teachers and District staff about their children.
WILL issued a demand letter to the school district on December 18, urging the MMSD to update and amend the above policies to avoid a lawsuit. MMSD responded on January 31, that there would be no update to district policies. WILL filed a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court in February 2020.
- Order Granting and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal, September 28, 2020
- “WILL Sues Madison Schools For Violating Parental Rights,” February 18, 2020
Recent Press Releases by Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
New study finds positive workforce effects from 2015 reforms
Critical questions remain before the court on emergency powers
WILL Policy Brief revisits how state law was thwarted by local actors for the last five years