Supreme Court to Decide Standing in Challenge to Washington Transgender Youth Law

The Supreme Court is now set to hear International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson, a case that tests whether federal courts can entertain parental-rights challenges to state laws that, in practice, shift notification away from parents when a runaway minor seeks gender-affirming medical care. The core of the dispute is Washington's ESSB 5599 (2023), which requires shelters and providers to notify the state Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) instead of directly contacting parents. DCYF must then make a 'good faith attempt' to notify parents and offer family reconciliation services. The petitioners, including the organization International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc., argue that this structure violates parental constitutional rights, but the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit because the parents lacked standing—they could not show the law caused them a concrete injury distinct from the general public.

The Trump administration, through Attorney General Pam Bondi's DOJ, has not taken a formal position in this specific case, but its broader pattern—subpoenaing NYU Langone Health for transgender care records and issuing compliance reviews targeting gender-affirming care—signals a willingness to use federal enforcement power to challenge state-level protections for transgender youth. Project 2025 envisions using standing doctrine to limit federal court review of executive actions while expanding state-level parental-rights claims, a tension the Court must navigate. If the justices reverse the standing dismissal, it could open the door for federal injunctions against state 'sanctuary' laws for transgender runaways, aligning with the project's goal of rolling back LGBTQ+ protections through litigation.

This case is not about whether parents are cut out entirely—the law explicitly attempts to involve families via DCYF—but about whether that mechanism is constitutionally adequate. A ruling for the parents would empower federal courts to police state-level child welfare systems, potentially forcing states to choose between protecting minors from family rejection or facing lawsuits. For the DOJ Civil Rights Division, the stakes are significant: a broad standing ruling could shift enforcement resources away from voting rights and police accountability toward defending state parental-notification laws, even as the division is already understaffed and under political pressure. The Court's decision, expected in 2027, will clarify how far parental rights extend over minor children's medical decisions—and whether state innovation in protecting vulnerable youth can survive federal judicial scrutiny.