Mother’s Discovery THREATENS Schools Nationwide

Group of children walking towards a school entrance with backpacks

A Maine mother’s battle against her local school district has reached the U.S. Supreme Court after she discovered officials secretly provided her 13-year-old daughter with chest binders and encouraged a gender transition without parental notification.

Story Overview

Amber Lavigne petitions Supreme Court after school social worker gave her daughter chest binders and used alternative pronouns without consent
Lower federal courts dismissed her case on procedural grounds without addressing the constitutional parental rights questions
The case could establish nationwide precedent on whether parents have a constitutional right to know about school decisions affecting their children’s gender identity
Similar cases from Massachusetts and Florida are pending before the Supreme Court, creating potential for landmark ruling on parental rights

The Discovery That Changed Everything

December 2022 marked a turning point for Newcastle resident Amber Lavigne when she uncovered what she describes as a deliberate campaign to hide her daughter’s activities at school. Social worker Samuel Roy had provided her 13-year-old with two breast binders and instructions on their use, while school officials began using alternative pronouns and a different name without her knowledge.

The revelation came not through any school communication, but through Lavigne’s own investigation. According to her legal team, Roy explicitly told the child not to inform her mother about these developments, creating what the lawsuit characterizes as an active conspiracy of concealment rather than passive non-disclosure.

Constitutional Questions at the Heart of the Case

The Goldwater Institute, representing Lavigne, argues that the case presents an urgent constitutional question about the fundamental scope of parental rights. Attorney Adam Shelton contends that parents possess a constitutional right to know when public school officials make important decisions affecting their children’s mental health and physical well-being.

The petition raises two distinct questions for the Supreme Court’s consideration. First, a procedural issue about whether cases can be dismissed due to probable alternative explanations, and second, the substantive constitutional question of whether parents have fundamental rights to notification when schools facilitate a child’s gender transition. This framing positions the case as both a technical legal dispute and a broader constitutional challenge.

Federal Courts Sidestep the Core Issues

District Court Judge Jon D. Levy dismissed Lavigne’s case in May 2024, ruling that she failed to establish municipal liability with sufficient facts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this dismissal in July 2024, leaving the underlying constitutional questions unresolved. Both courts avoided addressing whether Lavigne’s parental rights were actually violated.

The procedural dismissals have frustrated Lavigne and her legal team, who argue that the courts should have accepted her factual allegations as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage. This procedural dispute itself has become a key component of the Supreme Court petition, with the Goldwater Institute arguing that uniform national guidance is desperately needed on these questions.

Broader Pattern of School Secrecy Emerges

Lavigne’s case exists within a larger context of federal scrutiny over Maine’s education policies. The U.S. Department of Education opened an investigation into the Maine Department of Education over concerns about teachers and school counselors encouraging student gender transitions while keeping parents uninformed. This investigation creates potential consequences including loss of federal funding.

Great Salt Bay Community School has defended its actions as compliance with state law requirements to provide safe, welcoming, and inclusive educational environments. The school district maintains that its policies follow specific procedures designed to protect student privacy while supporting their well-being, creating a fundamental tension between institutional authority and parental rights.