Supreme Court declines K-12 cases on gender support plan, race-conscious admissions

最高法院驳回K-12关于性别支持计划和种族意识录取的案件

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear two closely watched K-12 cases, one regarding a Wisconsin school district’s “gender identity support plan” policy and another on temporary admissions policies meant to diversify student bodies at three competitive Boston schools.

美国最高法院周一拒绝审理两起备受关注的K-12案件，一起涉及威斯康星州学区的“性别认同支持计划”政策，另一起涉及旨在使波士顿三所竞争激烈的学校的学生群体多样化的临时招生政策。

The court’s latest punt on trans issues in schools

法院对学校跨性别问题的最新裁决

In Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, a group of parents challenged a Wisconsin school district’s enforcement of administrative guidance for student gender identity support plans.

在父母保护我们的孩子诉欧克莱尔地区学区一案中，一群家长质疑威斯康星州学区对学生性别认同支持计划的行政指导。

The parents’ lawsuit alleged that the policy allowed students to change their names and pronouns and use facilities aligning to their gender identity without parent notification or consent. Educators and staff, the lawsuit claimed, were trained that “parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities” but must “earn” that knowledge.

家长的诉讼称，该政策允许学生在没有家长通知或同意的情况下更改姓名和代词，并使用符合其性别身份的设施。诉讼称，教育工作者和工作人员接受的培训是“父母无权知道孩子的身份”，但必须“获得”这些知识。

This, the parents argued, amounted to a violation of parents' constitutional rights that include the right to make decisions on the care and control of their children, as well as First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion by interfering with their right to guide their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

这对父母认为，这相当于侵犯了父母的宪法权利，包括决定照顾和控制子女的权利，以及第一修正案自由信奉宗教的权利，干涉了他们根据自己的宗教信仰指导子女的权利。

Gender support plans are personalized documents intended to build common understanding among staff, parents and a student about how a student’s gender identity will be accounted for and supported in school. These plans take into account factors like a student’s needs, personality, and surrounding community and family.

性别支持计划是个性化的文件，旨在在教职员工、家长和学生之间就如何在学校考虑和支持学生的性别认同达成共识。这些计划考虑了学生的需求、个性以及周围的社区和家庭等因素。

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March upheld the case's earlier dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The district court had found that the parents failed to identify any scenario in which the policy infringed upon their parental rights.

美国第七巡回上诉法院今年3月维持了美国威斯康星州西区地方法院早些时候驳回的案件。地区法院发现，父母未能确定该政策侵犯了他们父母权利的任何情况。

The parents’ concerns about how the policy could be applied didn’t provide grounds to sue unless there had been injury or imminent risk of injury, the appeals court said. The court also found that the policy didn’t require that parents be excluded from discussions or decisions regarding their child’s gender expression.

上诉法院表示，父母对如何适用该政策的担忧并没有提供起诉的理由，除非存在伤害或迫在眉睫的伤害风险。法院还发现，该政策并不要求父母被排除在有关孩子性别表达的讨论或决定之外。

The Supreme Court’s decision not to take the case was not unanimous. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Alito writing that the question presented by the case — whether a school district violates parents’ constitutional rights in the raising of their children when it “encourages” or “assists” in a student’s decision to transition genders — is “a question of great and growing national importance.” The dissent went on to say, "We are told that more than 1,000 districts have adopted such policies."

最高法院不受理此案的决定并不是一致的。法官塞缪尔·阿利托(Samuel Alito)和克拉伦斯·托马斯(Clarence Thomas)不同意，阿利托写道，该案提出的问题是——当学区“鼓励”或“协助”学生决定变性时，是否侵犯了父母抚养孩子的宪法权利。性别——是“一个具有重大且日益增长的国家重要性的问题”。异议人士接着说：“我们被告知有超过1000个区采取了这样的政策。”

Citing the wording of the Eau Claire policy and its guidance regarding training for school personnel that could “keep parents in the dark,” Alito said “the parents’ fear that the school district might make decisions for their children without their knowledge and consent is not ‘speculative.’”

阿利托引用了欧克莱尔政策的措辞及其关于学校人员培训的指导意见，这些措辞可能“让家长蒙在鼓里”，他说，“家长担心学区可能会在他们不知情和未经同意的情况下为他们的孩子做出决定，这并不是‘投机’。”

The Parents Protecting Our Children case isn’t the first time in recent years the Supreme Court has punted on transgender issues in schools. In January, justices declined to hear a case on an Indiana school district’s policies barring transgender students from using bathrooms aligning with their gender identities.

父母保护我们的孩子一案并不是最高法院近年来第一次在学校的跨性别问题上下注。一月份，法官拒绝审理印第安纳州一个学区禁止跨性别学生使用与其性别身份相符的浴室的政策案件。

In that case, the rejection upheld a 7th Circuit ruling that the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville and the student’s former principal likely violated the Title IX anti-sex discrimination law in refusing to let transgender students use bathrooms aligning with their gender identities. The decision in Metropolitan School District v. A.C covered the three states under the 7th Circuit’s purview: Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

在该案中，驳回维持了第七巡回法院的一项裁决，即马丁斯维尔大都会学区和该学生的前校长拒绝让跨性别学生使用符合其性别身份的浴室，可能违反了第九章反性别歧视法。大都会学区诉A.C案的判决涵盖了第七巡回法院管辖范围内的三个州：伊利诺伊州、印第安纳州和威斯康星州。

In 2021, the court also notably declined to hear Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, a case filed in 2015 by student Gavin Grimm after his Virginia school district’s board prohibited transgender students from using bathrooms or locker rooms aligned with their gender identities.

2021年，法院还特别拒绝审理格林诉格洛斯特县学校董事会案，该案由学生加文·格林(Gavin Grimm)于2015年提起，此前他所在的弗吉尼亚学区董事会禁止跨性别学生使用与其性别身份相符的浴室或更衣室。

What constitutes race-conscious admissions in K-12?

什么构成了K-12的种族意识录取？

In the second K-12 case rejected by the Supreme Court on Monday, parents challenged a temporary pandemic-era admissions policy that reserved seats in three competitive magnet schools for students in grades 7-12 with the highest GPAs in each Boston neighborhood.

在最高法院周一驳回的第二起K-12案件中，家长们对疫情时代的一项临时招生政策提出了质疑，该政策为波士顿每个社区平均绩点最高的7-12年级学生保留了三所竞争激烈的磁铁学校的席位。

This policy replaced a traditional admissions system based on standardized entrance exams for Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy, and John D. O’Bryant School of Mathematics and Science. It was in place only during the 2021-22 school year.

这一政策取代了波士顿拉丁学校、波士顿拉丁学院和约翰·D·奥布赖恩特数学和科学学院基于标准化入学考试的传统招生制度。它仅在2021-22学年实施。

While White and Asian students were still overrepresented in admissions under the temporary policy, they were less so than under the traditional test-based system.

虽然在临时政策下，白人和亚裔学生在招生中的比例仍然过高，但与传统的基于考试的制度相比，他们的比例要低。

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously affirmed a district court’s ruling in the case, Boston Parent Coalition For Academic Excellence Corp. v. The School Committee for the City of Boston, finding that the parent group's claim that the temporary policy had a disparate impact on White and Asian students lacked merit. The appeals court wrote that whether the use of criteria like residence, family income and GPA was adopted in admissions to increase racial or ethnic diversity or without consideration to its likelihood to increase diversity was in the eye of the beholder.

美国第一巡回上诉法院此前确认了地区法院在波士顿学术卓越家长联盟诉波士顿市学校委员会一案中的裁决，发现该家长团体声称临时政策对白人和亚裔学生的影响不同，缺乏价值。上诉法院写道，在录取中是否采用居住、家庭收入和GPA等标准来增加种族或民族多样性，或者不考虑其增加多样性的可能性，这是旁观者的看法。

In an opinion concurring with the court’s rejection of the case, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the challenge in hearing the case is that the disputed policy is no longer in place. “The parents and students do not challenge Boston’s new policy, nor do they suggest that the city is simply biding its time, intent on reviving the old policy,” Gorsuch wrote. “Strictly speaking, those developments may not moot this case. But, to my mind, they greatly diminish the need for our review.”

尼尔·戈萨奇法官在同意法院驳回此案的意见中写道，审理此案的挑战在于有争议的政策不再适用。戈萨奇写道：“家长和学生并没有挑战波士顿的新政策，也没有暗示该市只是在等待时机，打算恢复旧政策。”“严格地说，这些事态发展可能不会使本案具有实际意义。但是，在我看来，它们大大减少了我们审查的必要性。”

But Alito, again joined by Thomas, dissented from the decision not to take the case. Alito wrote that the Boston School Committee, which began exploring changes to the three schools’ admissions processes in 2019, “put race front and center” when voting on the proposal in late 2020 — including opening the meeting “with a lengthy statement from ‘anti-racist activist’ Dr. Ibram X. Kendi.”

但是阿利托和托马斯一起反对不接这个案子的决定。阿利托写道，波士顿学校委员会于2019年开始探索对这三所学校招生流程的改变，在2020年底对该提案进行投票时“将种族置于前沿和中心”，包括在会议开幕时“发表了一份冗长的声明”。“反种族主义活动家”Ibram X.Kendi博士。”

“We have now twice refused to correct a glaring constitutional error that threatens to perpetuate race-based affirmative action in defiance of Students for Fair Admissions,” Alito wrote, citing both the court’s refusal to hear a similar admissions case involving Virginia’s selective Thomas Jefferson High School in February and its ruling striking down race-conscious admissions in higher education in 2023.

阿利托写道：“我们现在两次拒绝纠正一个明显的宪法错误，该错误可能会使基于种族的平权行动永久化，无视学生的公平入学要求。”他引用了法院拒绝审理涉及弗吉尼亚州选择性托马斯·杰斐逊高中的类似招生案件。2月份的学校及其在2023年取消高等教育中具有种族意识的招生的裁决。

In the latter decision, the justices struck down race-conscious admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as unconstitutional, overturning 1978’s landmark Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision. The cases against the two universities were brought by Students For Fair Admissions, a conservative nonprofit that argued UNC-Chapel Hill favored Black and Hispanic students and that Harvard discriminated against Asian American students.

在后一项裁决中，法官们推翻了哈佛大学和北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校出于种族意识的招生做法违宪，推翻了1978年具有里程碑意义的加州大学董事诉巴克案的裁决。针对这两所大学的案件是由保守的非营利组织学生公平招生组织提起的，该组织认为北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校偏爱黑人和西班牙裔学生，哈佛歧视亚裔美国学生。

On Friday, however, a federal judge threw a wrench into a follow-up Students For Fair Admissions suit by upholding race-conscious admissions at the U.S. Naval Academy. The practice, U.S. Senior District Judge Richard Bennett wrote, is necessary to help the institution build “an officer corps that represents the country it protects and the people it leads.”

然而，周五，一名联邦法官支持美国海军学院（U.S.Naval Academy）的种族意识招生，从而引发了后续学生公平招生诉讼。美国高级地区法官理查德·贝内特写道，这种做法对于帮助该机构建立“一支代表其保护的国家及其领导的人民的军官队伍”是必要的。

This was in line with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against Harvard and UNC, where Chief Justice John Roberts said in a footnote to the majority opinion that military institutions may have “potentially distinct interests” from traditional colleges in regard to race-conscious admissions practices.

这与2023年最高法院针对哈佛大学和北卡罗来纳大学的裁决一致，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在多数意见的脚注中表示，军事机构在种族意识招生做法方面可能与传统大学有“潜在的不同利益”。