A federal appeals court on Thursday revived a lawsuit against a New York school district for socially transitioning a student behind her mother’s back, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in favor of California parents.
In a 3-0 ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court to reconsider the legal claims made by Jennifer Vitsaxaki, the student’s mother, following the high court’s March 2 decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta.
In Mirabelli, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of California parents who argued that their free speech, free exercise and due process rights were violated by state laws and policies prohibiting staff from disclosing students’ school-based gender transitions to their families.
“The parties agree that this decision at least partially undermines the district court’s reasoning as to the Free Exercise and Due Process issues,” said the 2nd Circuit’s decision. “For that reason, we vacate the district court’s judgment for the School District with respect to Vitsaxaki’s claims for damages, and we remand for the court to consider how Mirabelli may affect the analysis in the first instance.”
Ms. Vitsaxaki sued the Skaneateles Central School District after school officials worked with her seventh-grade daughter on a “Gender Support Plan” during the 2020-21 academic year that included referring to her by a masculine name and pronouns.
The plan also required school staff to keep the girl’s social transition a secret from her family by using her legal name and feminine pronouns when speaking to her parents.
When Ms. Vitsaxaki learned of the plan, she pulled her daughter out of in-person school and switched her to online education. But the girl continued to meet with school staff about her gender transition, unbeknownst to her mother.
“During this time, some staff continued to refer to her daughter by the masculine name even after Vitsaxaki told them to stop,” said the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the mother, in a Thursday statement. “The following school year, she enrolled her daughter at a private school in Syracuse, 25 miles from their home.”
Senior U.S. District Judge David Hurd, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the case in March 2025, finding that the gender-transition policy is “rationally related to the school district’s legitimate interest in promoting a safe learning environment for its students.”
He also ruled that Ms. Vitsaxaki lacked standing in her claim for declaratory relief because her daughter no longer attends the school. On that score, the appeals court agreed.
“Because, on the pleadings before us, there is no likelihood that the child or Vitsaxaki would be subject to the Policy in the future, there is no likelihood of future harm to support standing to seek declaratory relief,” said the appeals court in its 16-page decision.
The lawsuit, described by ADF President and CEO Kristen Waggoner as “one of our most shocking ’secret social transition’ cases yet,” drew dozens of amicus briefs from conservative groups in support of Ms. Vitsaxaki.
Those backing the school district included 13 Democratic attorneys general, transgender-rights groups, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
“School districts have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that all students — including transgender and gender-nonconforming students — have access to education free from discrimination, harassment, and intimidation,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, in a July 2025 statement. “Our amicus brief underscores our commitment to safeguarding the rights and safety of all students regardless of their gender identity.”
ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson cheered the appeals court’s decision to resurrect the lawsuit, saying that parents have a “fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, and healthcare of their children.”
“School officials made decisions about the girl’s identity that should’ve been Jennifer’s to make,” said Ms. Anderson in a Thursday statement. “We are encouraged by the 2nd Circuit’s ruling today, canceling the decision below and sending the case back to the district court in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Mirabelli v. Bonta. We will be urging the district court to vindicate Jennifer’s fundamental right to make consequential decisions about her daughter’s well-being.”
