On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed a challenge to a Maryland public school support plan for transgender and gender-nonconforming students that does not require the consent of the student’s parents. The case is an appeal from the US District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.

Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum authored the opinion of the court. Quattlebaum ruled that the parents in the case do not have standing under Article III § 2 of the Constitution to challenge the policy. Article III limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “cases” and “controversies.” Quattlebaum reasoned that the parents do not allege a “current injury, a certainly impending injury or substantial risk of a future injury.” Quattlebaum concluded that the plaintiff parents do not have standing because their children are not transgender or are in need of their school’s gender support plans.

Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer dissented. Niemeyer argued that the majority construes the plaintiff parents’ complaint in an “unfairly narrow way” and gives them no “avenue of redress.” He also asserted that the policy implicates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment because how to pursue a gender transition is a “family matter” that should not be addressed “initially and exclusively” by schools without the knowledge and consent of the child’s parents.

The guidelines authorize schools to withhold information from parents about plans if it deems the parents to be “unsupportive.” Parents of public school students challenged the policy, arguing that it violates their rights as parents to rear their children. The court remanded the case back to the district court to be dismissed for lack of standing.