SUMMARY: Wailes v. Jefferson County Public Schools
The May 12, 2026, oral arguments in Wailes v. Jefferson County Public Schools revealed just how central parental rights have become in the national debate over education policy and student privacy.
In June 2023, an 11-year-old girl covertly called her mother from her hotel room bathroom when she found out she had to share a hotel bed with a male student. Rather than immediately correcting the situation, school officials initially asked her to remain in the room and even instructed her to lie to her classmates and tell them that she was switching beds to be closer to the air conditioner. Only after further intervention from her mother did the school move students to different rooms.
ADF Senior Counsel, Noel Sterett, argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that Jefferson County Public Schools prioritized the male student’s privacy over their daughter’s comfort and safety which denied her parents the opportunity to make an informed decision and exercise their parental rights beforehand due to JeffCo’s failure to provide meaningful notice before placing female students in overnight sleeping arrangements with male students identifying as female. More importantly, they argued that parents were effectively denied any realistic accommodation short of removing their children entirely from educational opportunities.
While the case involves a school district’s gender identity lodging policy for overnight trips, the heart of the plaintiffs’ argument was more far-reaching and integral to the basic question of whether parents still possess the fundamental right to direct the upbringing, care, and moral formation of their children within the school system.
In fact, Moms for Liberty submitted an amicus brief (https://adflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/wailes-v-jefferson-county-public-schools-2025-11-26-amicus-brief-moms-for-liberty.pdf ) in this case arguing that Jefferson County Public Schools exceeded its in loco parentis authority by enforcing its policy and refusing to accommodate the objecting parents.
During oral arguments, members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit appeared to take those concerns seriously. Questions from the bench repeatedly focused on whether forcing families to choose between their religious convictions and participation in school activities constitutes a constitutional burden. Judge Harris Hartz notably suggested that excluding students from trips because of parental objections “strikes me as a burden that needs to be justified.”
That exchange underscored the significance of the parental-rights component of the case. The plaintiffs were not arguing for hostility toward transgender students; rather, they argued that parents cannot be reduced to passive observers while schools make deeply personal decisions involving privacy, morality, and child welfare. Although there is no decision yet in this case, it may ultimately prove to be one of the most significant parental-rights cases to emerge from the Tenth Circuit.