Education
Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Florida Case Over Gender Identity in Schools

A federal appeals court ruled this week against a Florida couple who had sued officials in their child’s school district for disregarding their wishes and excluding them from discussions about the child’s gender identity.
The ruling adds to a complicated legal landscape concerning minors and gender identity. While Republican lawmakers across the country have sought to restrict gender-transition care and the expression of gender identity, federal courts have remained divided over whether such laws violate equal protection.
Some parents, like the ones in the Florida case, have argued that their rights should take precedence over a child’s professed wish to transition. Others, facing bans on transition care for teenagers, have argued that their children have a right to health care that they feel is necessary for their well-being.
At the center of the Florida case is January Littlejohn, who with her husband sued the Leon County School District in Tallahassee and has become a prominent promoter of parental rights. Now affiliated with an organization opposed to gender-transition care, she was a guest of the first lady, Melania Trump, at President Trump’s speech to Congress last week.
Ms. Littlejohn “is now a courageous advocate against this form of child abuse,” Mr. Trump said in his speech, nodding to her as he detailed the steps his administration had taken to “protect our children from toxic ideologies in our schools.”
But two of the three judges who heard the case for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected the argument made by Ms. Littlejohn and her husband, and upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case.
“Even if the Littlejohns felt that defendants’ efforts to help their child were misguided or wrong, the mere fact that the school officials acted contrary to the Littlejohns’ wishes does not mean that their conduct ‘shocks the conscience’ in a constitutional sense,” Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum wrote in the majority opinion.
A lawyer for the couple did not say whether the Littlejohns would appeal, but said “we cannot allow this assault on parental rights to remain unchallenged.”
“This decision wrongly emboldens school districts to act in secret, eroding the fundamental parental rights that have been upheld by the Supreme Court for more than 100 years,” said Vernadette Broyles, the president and general counsel for the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, a nonprofit law firm.
The child, who is not identified by name in the lawsuit, first asked to use they/them pronouns and a more masculine name ahead of the 2020-21 school year at Deerlake Middle School in Tallahassee. While the Littlejohns agreed to use a different name as a nickname, they did not explicitly agree to the use of different pronouns — something they told the school staff.
At the time, the school district was using a 2018 guide that warned that “outing a student, especially to parents can be very dangerous” for a student’s well-being. And it allowed for a support plan that documented, in part, whether parents were “supportive” of a student’s identity or whether they were to be identified as L.G.B.T.Q. to their parents. (The guide was updated in 2022 after Florida passed a law prohibiting any classroom instruction about sexual or gender identity.)
When the Littlejohns learned of their child’s identity change, they asked the school why they had not been included in meetings setting up a support plan. Administrators said that because the child had not asked for their involvement, and because there was no law requiring parents to be informed, the school did not have to involve them in the decision.
“It’s our fundamental right to direct the upbringing of our children,” Ms. Littlejohn said in a video posted by the White House this month. “And that includes mental and physical health care.”
The Littlejohns sued the school district, the superintendent, the assistant superintendent equity officer and a school counselor, arguing that their parental due process and privacy rights had been violated. But Mark E. Walker, the chief judge for U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, dismissed the case in December 2022. That decision upheld by the appeals court on Wednesday.
The school officials named in the case “did not force the Littlejohns’ child to do anything at all,” Judge Rosenbaum of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. “And perhaps most importantly, defendants did not act with intent to injure. To the contrary, they sought to help the child.”
A lawyer representing the school district and staff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
After Mr. Trump singled out Ms. Littlejohn in his speech last week, Rocky Hanna, the Leon County Schools superintendent, told The Tallahassee Democrat: “To blatantly lie and disparage our teachers and our public schools to simply gain notoriety or political power is reprehensible. I only hope that truth and honesty matter more to our federal courts than it does to Ms. Littlejohn, our current governor and our current president.”
Wednesday’s ruling — 169 pages in total — reflected divisions on the court, including between the two judges who agreed to dismiss the case.
In his concurring opinion, Judge Kevin C. Newsom said he considered the actions taken by the school district officials “shameful.” But the question at hand, he wrote, was “whether it was unconstitutional.”
“If I were a legislator, I’d vote to change the policy that enabled the defendants’ efforts to keep the Littlejohns in the dark,” he wrote. “But — and it’s a big but — judges aren’t just politicians in robes, and they don’t (or certainly shouldn’t) just vote their personal preferences.”
Senior Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, who dissented, warned that the decision “ignores bedrock separation of powers principles, waters down fundamental rights and flies in the face of our prior panel precedent rule.”

Education
Video: Suspect In Custody For the Shooting of Charlie Kirk

new video loaded: Suspect In Custody For the Shooting of Charlie Kirk
transcript
transcript
Suspect In Custody For the Shooting of Charlie Kirk
Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah identified the suspect in the Charlie Kirk shooting in a Friday morning news conference.
-
We got him. On the evening of Sept. 11, a family member of Tyler Robinson reached out to a family friend who contacted the Washington County Sheriff’s Office with information that Robinson had confessed to them or implied that he had committed the incident. Investigators interviewed a family member of Robinson, who stated that Robinson had become more political in recent years. Investigators identified an individual as the roommate of Robinson. Investigators interviewed that roommate. Investigators asked if he would show them the messages on Discord. The content of these messages included messages affiliated with the contact Tyler stating a need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point, leaving the rifle in a bush. Investigators noted inscriptions that had been engraved on casings found with the rifle. Inscriptions on the three unfired casings read, “Hey, fascist!” Exclamation point. “Catch!” exclamation point.
Education
Video: Ukrainian Students Start New School Year in Underground Classrooms

new video loaded: Ukrainian Students Start New School Year in Underground Classrooms
By Jiawei Wang•
With Russian attacks ongoing and peace talks stalled, some students in Ukraine are attending classes underground. For some, it is their first in-person learning in more than three years of war.
Education
What Has the Trump Administration Gotten From Law Firms and Universities?

Harvard University claimed a victory in its legal case against the Trump administration on Wednesday, when a federal judge ruled that the government broke the law by freezing billions of dollars in research funding. The ruling, which the administration has pledged to appeal, potentially gave Harvard new leverage in its battle toward a settlement to restore funding, in exchange for payments demanded by President Trump.
About a dozen other universities and major law firms have struck deals with the government in recent months — instead of taking cases to court — to unfreeze funding or avoid restrictive executive orders.
Mr. Trump has used the full force of the federal government — opening civil rights investigations, freezing federal funding and threatening to cancel government contracts — to push for these agreements. These deals have reverberated across the legal industry and academia, and they could shape how other institutions respond to Mr. Trump’s methods.
Most of the deals involve paying millions of dollars, either in cash or legal services, to the administration. But the deals also include other concessions, like commitments to redefine discrimination, acquiesce to more government oversight and assess ideology.
Below, we break down what these deals have in common.
1. Money or legal services
Much of the focus around these deals has been around the money that Mr. Trump has demanded from each entity, payable either to his administration, or to state or compensation funds.
Brown University | $50 million over 10 years |
Rhode Island work force development organizations |
Columbia University | $200 million over 3 years |
The U.S. Treasury |
$21 million | A compensation fund to resolve alleged civil rights violations against Jewish Columbia employees | |
Nine major law firms | Legal services worth: $940 million |
The Trump administration, for causes like assisting veterans and law enforcement, ensuring fairness in the justice system and combating antisemitism |
Paul Weiss | $40 million | |
Skadden | $100 million | |
Willkie | $100 million | |
Milbank | $100 million | |
Cadwalader | $100 million | |
Kirkland & Ellis | $125 million | |
Latham & Watkins | $125 million | |
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett | $125 million | |
A&O Shearman | $125 million |
The universities have taken varied approaches to their payments. Columbia agreed to pay a fine to the federal government. Brown’s payment will go to Rhode Island work force development programs, which the university’s president has said are aligned with their service and community engagement missions.
Critics have likened Mr. Trump’s methods of extracting money from these entities to extortion.
The law firms have faced internal backlash and external criticism for promising to pour resources into causes favored by the president. Shortly after the deals with them were signed, Mr. Trump publicly suggested that he might use their labor to achieve more of his own goals, including in the negotiations of trade deals or even representing him personally.
Other businesses, including Nvidia and Intel, have been drawn into making financial deals with the Trump administration in order to continue doing business or to sell their products to China. The specific details of most of those deals have not been made public.
2. Redefining discrimination
On his first day in office, Mr. Trump signed executive orders gutting racial equity policies and protections for transgender people. Those themes, along with addressing antisemitism and targeting international students, were evident in many of these agreements.
No “unlawful D.E.I. goals”: Columbia and Brown agreed to eliminate programs that aim to achieve diversity goals. (Both universities had already eliminated race-conscious affirmative action following a June 2023 Supreme Court decision outlawing it.) They promised to rely more on quantitative measures, instead of demographics, in their admissions practices.
Columbia University
“… shall maintain merit-based admissions policies. Columbia may not, by any means, unlawfully preference applicants based on race, color, or national origin in admissions throughout its programs. No proxy for racial admission will be implemented or maintained.”
Experts say relying on test scores and grades in admissions could result in wealthier, less diverse student populations at these elite institutions.
Law firms were similarly subject to these rules in their hiring practices.
Skadden | Cadwalader | Kirkland & Ellis | Latham & Watkins | A&O Shearman | Simpson Thacher & Bartlett | Milbank | Willkie
“… affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention. Accordingly, the Firm will not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”
Transgender students: The University of Pennsylvania has been central in the debate around transgender athletes, specifically because of Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer who graduated in 2022 and held several of Penn’s swimming records. The school’s deal with Mr. Trump revoked her records and limited how transgender students may participate in its athletic programs.
University of Pennsylvania
“… will not allow male students to compete in any athletic program restricted to women, ensuring that only female students are eligible to compete as a member of women’s athletics.”
In this way, the university bowed to the administration’s new interpretation of Title IX, a law that until recently protected transgender athletes from sex discrimination in education.
Penn and the other universities also agreed to additional rules around single-sex facilities and medical services for transgender students.
Columbia University
“… will uphold its commitment to Title IX … by providing safe and fair opportunities for women including single-sex housing for women who request such housing and all-female sports, locker rooms, and showering facilities …”
Brown University
“… will not perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
According to Brown, the number of minors enrolled at the university is typically less than 10 percent of all first-year undergraduates; the campus does not have surgical facilities; and its doctors do not typically prescribe puberty blockers.
Fighting antisemitism: Columbia agreed to pay $21 million to a compensation fund to resolve alleged civil rights violations against its Jewish employees. It also agreed to a review of its regional studies programs, starting with the Middle East, to ensure that they are “comprehensive and balanced.” The agreement does not define how those terms will be applied.
The school will also appoint new faculty members who will have joint positions in both the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and other departments, and add a student liaison to coordinate and advise on antisemitism issues.
Both Columbia’s and Brown’s agreements have provisions outlining support for Jewish life on campus.
Brown University
“… is committed to taking significant, proactive, effective steps to combat antisemitism and ensure a campus environment free from harassment and discrimination. These shall include actions to support a thriving Jewish community, research and education about Israel, and a robust Program in Judaic Studies, through outreach to Jewish Day School students to provide information about applying to Brown, resources for religiously observant Jewish community members, renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations, support for enhanced security at the Brown-RISD Hillel, and a convening of alumni, students, and faculty to celebrate 130 years of Jewish life at Brown in the 2025-2026 academic year.”
International students: Columbia’s agreement with the Trump administration outlines provisions on international students, including asking them their reasons for wanting to study in the United States and reducing the school’s reliance on international student enrollment. (Columbia has about 13,700 international students, about 38 percent of its total student body.)
Columbia University
“… will examine its business model and take steps to decrease financial dependence on international student enrollment. The reforms should be made durable by adoption of any necessary organizational and personnel changes.”
3. Government oversight
Through the deals with Columbia and Brown, the Trump administration also gained access to information about their applicants, including details on race, grades and test scores.
Columbia University | Brown University
“… shall provide … the United States with admissions data … showing both rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests, in a form permitting appropriate statistical analyses by October 1 of each year …”
Both schools are also required to make anonymized information on enrolled students available to the public, including demographics and grade point averages of each class.
Columbia also agreed to pay for a monitor, approved by the school and the government, to ensure that both sides abide by their commitments. It must now also inform the Department of Homeland Security when an international student is arrested. (Universities were already required to inform Homeland Security when an international student was suspended or expelled.)
Brown agreed to hire an external organization to conduct a campus survey by the end of the year on the school’s climate for Jewish students.
Similarly, the law firms also agreed to hire outside counsel to ensure adherence.
Paul Weiss
“… will engage experts, to be mutually agreed upon within 14 days, to conduct a comprehensive audit of all of its employment practices …”
Willkie
“… will engage independent outside counsel to advise the Firm in confirming that employment practices are fully compliant with Law …”
4. Assessing ideology
Some of the law firms targeted by Mr. Trump were associated with lawyers who have previously investigated him, or who have worked closely with those who did. Other firms had prominent Democrats on staff, or employed people who frequently criticized the president.
To that end, in each of their agreements, the law firms agreed to work on a wider range of cases, regardless of the political affiliation of the lawyer or prospective client.
Paul Weiss
“… will take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints of our society, whether ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal.’”
Milbank
“… shall not deny representation to any clients on the basis of the political affiliation of the prospective client, or because of the opposition of any Government Official.”
Kirkland & Ellis | Latham & Watkins | A&O Shearman | Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
“… will not deny representation to clients … because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.”
In return for the concessions, Mr. Trump revoked his executive order against the law firm Paul Weiss that would have suspended its security clearances, restricted its access to federal buildings and threatened its contracts with the government. The eight other law firms struck deals pre-emptively to avoid being subject to similar executive orders.
For most of the universities, the administration restored hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding that it had previously frozen. It also closed pending investigations into the schools of antisemitism or alleged violations of civil rights. Both the presidents of Columbia and Brown have publicly stated that these deals preserve the schools’ academic freedom.
Brown University
Yes
Yes Yes
–
No
Columbia University
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
University of Pennsylvania
–
No
Yes
– No
–
No
Nine major law firms
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Concessions in deals with the Trump administration
What’s next
Like Harvard, four major law firms have fought back against the president instead of striking a deal. Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block all filed lawsuits, which resulted in federal judges temporarily blocking Mr. Trump’s executive orders targeting them. The administration has recently begun to appeal these rulings.
Several other law firms have been questioned by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on their hiring practices and potential discrimination against white candidates, raising concerns of threats from the White House.
The Trump administration has vowed to appeal the court’s ruling that its funding cuts against Harvard were illegal. It remains unclear whether the school will receive its money. Mr. Trump has also frozen federal funding to other universities, including Princeton, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and the University of California, Los Angeles, setting the stage for potential negotiations. In August, the administration proposed that U.C.L.A. pay more than $1 billion to reach a settlement. This month, after a difficult tenure that included attacks from Republicans in Congress and funding cuts, the president of Northwestern resigned.
Several other schools are watching for funding cuts as they come under the scrutiny of the Department of Education and a government task force that says it is devoted to rooting out antisemitism.
Sources
This analysis is based on publicly available text pertaining to the agreements between the Trump administration and Brown University, Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Cadwalader, Latham & Watkins, Kirkland & Ellis, Milbank, Willkie, Skadden and Paul Weiss.
-
Finance6 days ago
Reimagining Finance: Derek Kudsee on Coda’s AI-Powered Future
-
Business1 week ago
How Nexstar’s Proposed TV Merger Is Tied to Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension
-
North Dakota6 days ago
Board approves Brent Sanford as new ‘commissioner’ of North Dakota University System
-
World1 week ago
Russian jets enter Estonia's airspace in latest test for NATO
-
Crypto5 days ago
Texas brothers charged in cryptocurrency kidnapping, robbery in MN
-
World5 days ago
Syria’s new president takes center stage at UNGA as concerns linger over terrorist past
-
Technology5 days ago
These earbuds include a tiny wired microphone you can hold
-
Culture5 days ago
Test Your Memory of These Classic Books for Young Readers