(Daily Signal)—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 meant to accompany a panel at the Lavender Law conference in Chicago 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 document claims that the Supreme Court has not given “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 Sterett, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, cried foul on this framing.
“It is false that the Supreme Court has reached ‘inconsistent conclusions’ in parental rights cases and ‘muddied the doctrinal waters,’” Sterett told the Daily Signal in a statement Thursday.
“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 kids 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 mandated that school staff hide a student’s claimed transgender identity from parents unless the student expressly consented to reveal it.
The LGBTQ+ Bar document raises one case in which the Supreme Court rejected a parental rights argument from the LGBTQ+ activist side. Parents who sought to have sex-rejecting procedures performed on their children sued Tennessee, aiming to block a law banning these procedures on minors. This case dovetailed with U.S. 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, raising parental rights issues.
The ADF lawyer put the case in context.
“The Supreme Court’s decision not to address parental rights in LW v. Skrmetti was not an inconsistent result,” Sterett 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 highlights parental rights cases that align with transgender advocacy, while acknowledging the 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 those 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. The Department of Health and Human Services released a peer-reviewed report finding “extremely weak evidence” of any benefit for “gender-affirming care” for minors.
The Daily Signal reached out to the LGBTQ+ Bar Association for comment, asking what strategies the panel considered and whether the association considers parental rights arguments a threat to transgender activism. The association did not respond.
Regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the association’s legal strategy, this panel will likely shape the arguments Americans hear in court.
The LGBTQ+ Bar Association’s Lavender Law Conference & Career Fair in 2026 attracted roughly 2,000 attendees and received support from prominent legal organizations, government law offices, and prosecutor’s offices.
As such, the conference’s 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.
