PJI Joins Supreme Court Fight to Protect Parents From Government Secrecy

PJI's Amicus brief urges justices to allow parents to challenge Washington laws affecting parental notification and minor children

WASHINGTON - Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) has joined a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize the ability of parents to challenge Washington laws that petitioners say interfere with their authority over the care and upbringing of their children.

The brief was filed Sept. 15 in International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson, No. 25-840. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review June 29 and has scheduled oral argument for Dec. 7, 2026.

The case centers on Article III standing and whether parents must wait until Washington's laws have been applied to their own children before they can ask a federal court to review their constitutional claims. The petitioners include five sets of parents and two organizations that challenged three Washington laws governing minors' access to shelter services and mental health care. Lower courts dismissed the case for lack of standing without deciding the merits of the parents' constitutional claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that dismissal in July 2025.

At issue are Washington statutes amended in 2023 that address what happens when a runaway minor enters a licensed youth shelter. Under Washington Revised Code § 13.32A.082, shelters generally must contact a parent, but the law provides an exception when a minor is seeking or receiving "protected health care services," a category the statute expressly defines to include

"gender-affirming treatment." In those circumstances, the shelter must instead contact the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families. The case also challenges provisions governing minors' access to outpatient behavioral health services.

The parents contend that these laws interfere with their constitutional right to direct the care and upbringing of their children. The state disputes that the parents have established the concrete or imminent injury required for federal court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that allegedly displaces their decision-making role regarding their children's gender transitions.

PJI joined the National Legal Foundation, Center for Arizona Policy, Hawaii Family Forum, Illinois

Family Institute, Maryland Family Institute, Wisconsin Family Action, The Family Foundation, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Concerned Women for America, Protect Our Kids, Family Watch International, International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, and Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty in filing the amicus brief supporting the petitioners.

The brief argues that parents should not have to discover that information was already withheld from them before they can challenge a law designed to permit that information to be withheld. It maintains that such a requirement creates a practical barrier to judicial review because parents may be unable to know whether the policy has been applied to their child.

The amici also argue that the parent-child relationship itself gives parents a direct interest in challenging government policies that allegedly exclude them from consequential decisions involving their minor children. The brief relies on Supreme Court precedent recognizing parental rights, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Parham v. J.R. and Troxel v. Granville.

"Parents should not be forced to wait until the government has already withheld critical information about their child before they can seek protection from the courts," said PJI Founder and President Brad Dacus. "When a law directly affects a parent's ability to know what is happening with his or her minor child, that parent deserves an opportunity to have the constitutional claim heard. PJI is proud to stand with organizations across the country asking the Supreme Court to protect the vital relationship between parents and their children."

The case could affect how federal courts apply standing requirements when parents challenge government policies before those policies have produced a known injury. PJI and the other amici argue that requiring parents to first discover that a secrecy provision has been used against them can prevent meaningful judicial review of the very policies they seek to challenge.

The Supreme Court's decision will address standing, not whether the challenged Washington laws ultimately violate the Constitution. The case is scheduled for oral argument on Dec. 7.

Read PJI's amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Follow International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson on the official U.S. Supreme Court docket.

ABOUT PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE

Pacific Justice Institute is a nonprofit legal organization dedicated to defending religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties. PJI provides legal representation without charge to individuals and organizations whose constitutional rights are threatened.

Learn more about Pacific Justice Institute and its work defending parental rights, religious freedom and constitutional rights nationwide.

If your parental or constitutional rights have been violated, contact Pacific Justice Institute by completing a GET HELP FORM.

To help PJI continue providing legal representation without charge, we invite you to SUPPORT PJI with a tax-deductible gift today.

Media Contact - Pacific Justice Institute Media Relations https://www.pacificjustice.org