The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) sent a letter to the Houston Independent School District (HISD) demanding they stop gender transitioning a student without parental knowledge or consent. The ADF, a legal organization protecting parental rights, discovered HISD employees had been treating the student as a boy despite the parents’ instructions to stop. The ADF is requesting confirmation that the student will be referred to by her given name and correct pronouns, as well as documents related to the events.

The Center Square reports:

Nonprofit legal group Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to one of the largest school districts in the U.S. demanding that it stop gender transitioning one of its students without the knowledge or consent of her parents.

“Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to Houston Independent School District officials … seeking confirmation they have stopped treating one couple’s daughter as a boy – a so-called ‘social transition’ of the girl, who is a student in the district – and requesting that it provide documents to the couple,” ADF said in a news release.

ADF is “the world’s largest legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, marriage and family, and parental rights,” according to its website.

When reached for comment, Houston Independent School District (HISD) Board Services told The Center Square that its “inquiry has been forwarded to the administration for handling.”

No other response from HISD has been received.

Serving nearly 200,000 students at 274 campuses, HISD is the largest school district in Texas and the eighth-largest in the nation, according to its website.

According to the letter sent from the ADF to HISD, the student was transitioned “without notifying [her parents] or seeking their consent.”

Legal counsel for ADF Laurence Wilkinson told The Center Square that “no school district should hide information from parents about their children or undermine parents’ instructions on how to resolve mental health issues that their child is facing.”

“When schools exclude parents from information and decision-making, children get hurt,” Wilkinson said.

“We sent this demand letter to Houston ISD to ensure that our clients’ directions about how their daughter is treated at school are being respected, and to ensure that the district provides documents to the parents to help them understand what has been happening at school,” Wilkinson said.

ADF stated in its release that “in December 2023, the Houston family discovered a masculine name on their daughter’s school work and learned that HISD employees had been treating her as a boy for several months.”

“They instructed the employees to immediately stop,” the release said. “Although employees initially agreed, the parents later discovered employees had repeatedly ignored their instructions.”

“In a 2024 meeting with the principal of their daughter’s school, the principal did not immediately assure the parents that employees would stop,” ADF’s release said. “Instead, he suggested the parents should explore a ‘middle ground’ solution.”

“ADF is requesting that the school provide clear confirmation that the couple’s daughter will be referred to by her given name and correct pronouns, as well as provide documents related to the events that occurred,” the release said.

Laurence Wilkinson told The Center Square that “we are seeing school districts across the country pursue policies that require teachers and other school employees to lie to parents about their children’s mental health or struggles with their sex.”

“Pushing ‘social transition’ (which includes going by names and pronouns of the opposite sex) is a major intervention in a child’s life that puts the child on a difficult-to-escape pathway to harmful, medicalized transition, and carries the risk of life-long harm,” Wilkinson said.

“Schools should be fully transparent with parents about what is happening with their children at school,” Wilkinson said.

“Our clients and other parents have the right to direct the education, upbringing, and wellbeing of their children,” Wilkinson said. “We hope HISD will take the opportunity to affirm that right.”

ADF senior counsel Kate Anderson, director of ADF’s Center for Parental Rights, said in the news release that parents should have the right to parent “without fear of government interference.”

“School officials should support parents, not replace them, which is why we’re insisting that the school confirm they are respecting these parents’ constitutional rights,” Anderson said.

A Wisconsin appeals court rejected an attempt to block Elon Musk from giving $1 million each to two voters who sign a petition against “activist” judges. The payments are part of Musk’s support for conservative state Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel in a pivotal election that could determine partisan control of the court.

The Center Square reports:

A Wisconsin appeals court on Saturday declined to halt Elon Musk’s plan to give $1 million each to two voters who sign a petition against “activist” judges who have ruled against President Donald Trump’s efforts to cut government spending.

Musk plans the giveaway at a Sunday night rally in Green Bay, Wis., for state Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel, a conservative Waukesha County judge who faces liberal Dane County Judge Susan Crawford in Tuesday’s pivotal election, which will determine partisan control of the court.

Wisconsin Democrat Attorney General Josh Kaul filed suit Friday in an attempt to block the payments, claiming they were illegal. But a district court judge declined to issue an injunction Friday and the appeals court did as well Saturday.

Musk and President Donald Trump have endorsed Schimel in the Supreme Court race, calling Crawford an “activist” judge.

“Vote for Superjudge Brad Schimel in Wisconsin on Tuesday,” Musk wrote on X Sunday, before the Green Bay rally. “The Republican House majority is razor thin and the Democrats want to redrew Wisconsin districts to flip- the House and stop the government reforms.”

Musk’s post references his and Trump’s efforts to identify and cut what they call wasteful and fraudulent federal government spending, and the fact that Republicans hold a slim, 218-213, majority in the U.S. House with four seats vacant. Many Democrat members of Congress have opposed the cuts.

After Tuesday’s election, the Wisconsin Supreme Court could decide a number of key issues, including challenges to the state’s congressional maps.

The winner between Shimel and Crawford will replace retiring liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. Democrats currently hold a 5-4 advantage on Wisconsin’s highest court.

The Schimel v. Crawford election is the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history, with campaign spending approaching $100 million, according to reports.

Louisiana voters rejected four proposed constitutional amendments, including measures on justice, juvenile crime, taxation, and judicial elections. The amendments, aimed at reshaping the state’s approach to these issues, were all defeated by more than 60% of voters. Governor Landry expressed disappointment but vowed to continue working for positive change in the state.

The Center Square reports:

Louisiana voters overwhelmingly rejected four proposed constitutional amendments which aimed to reshape the state’s approach to justice, juvenile crime, taxation, and judicial elections. Each amendment was rejected by more than 60% of voters.

“This was a “primal scream” kind of vote, driven by robust Democratic EV turnout that I’m not seeing being offset by a strong GOP Election Day vote,” John Couvillon, an award-winning pollster, said in a post on X.

“Although we are disappointed in tonight’s results, we do not see this as a failure. We realize how hard positive change can be to implement in a state that is conditioned for failure,” Gov. Jeff Landry said in a statement. “We will continue working to give our citizens more opportunities to keep more of their hard-earned money and provide a better future for Louisianians. This is not the end for us, and we will continue to fight to make the generational changes for Louisiana to succeed.”

Amendment 1: Expanded Court Powers and Specialty Courts

Voters rejected a measure expanding the Louisiana Supreme Court’s disciplinary authority over out-of-state attorneys and allowing lawmakers to establish specialized trial courts that cross district lines. The amendment followed controversy over mass hurricane lawsuits filed by an out-of-state law firm and was challenged in court earlier this month. Amendment 1 was rejected by over 170,000 votes.

Amendment 2: Sweeping Fiscal Overhaul

Amendment 2, which would have rewrote Article VII of the Louisiana Constitution, was rejected by over 150,000 votes. The 100+ page overhaul includes capping state spending growth, consolidating reserve funds, shifting nearly $2 billion from education savings accounts to pay down retirement debt, and phasing out business inventory taxes. It has been a cornerstone of Landry’s tax reform agenda.

Amendment 3: Adult Prosecution for Juveniles

This amendment would allow lawmakers to expand the list of crimes for which minors can be tried as adults without another constitutional vote. Authored by Sen. Heather Cloud, R-Turkey Creek and opposed by youth justice advocates who argue the current list is already broad enough, Amendment 3 saw the most resounding rejection−a margin of over 180,000.

Amendment 4: Judicial Election Timing Fix

A technical amendment to align special judicial election timing with Louisiana’s soon-to-be closed-party primary system was rejected by over 120,000. Supporters say it prevents logistical issues when filling judicial vacancies; opponents said the change was minor and could have been handled by statute. It was the only measure not subject to a legal challenge.