Parents Shouldn't Have to Wait Until Their Child Runs Away

First Liberty Institute said on Oct. 24 that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear its case on Dec. 7, and that it is asking the justices “to protect families and their children from irreversible damage.”¹

The Supreme Court granted review on June 29, 2026, and set argument for Monday, Dec. 7, in International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc., et al. v. Bob Ferguson, Governor of Washington, et al., No. 25-840². The district court dismissed the parents’ case for lack of standing³, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed on July 25, 2025; Washington’s brief asks the Supreme Court to affirm or dismiss the case as improvidently granted⁴. Washington’s answer to these parents comes to this: wait until the harm happens, then come back.

The law lets shelters notify the state

Before 2023, Washington law generally required a licensed shelter to contact a runaway child’s parents within 72 hours³, with an exception when notification could expose the child to abuse or neglect. Washington’s own brief says what changed: in 2023 the state “transferred the responsibility to notify parents about certain runaway youth from licensed homeless shelters to the state’s child welfare agency.”⁴

Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5599 keeps the 72-hour rule but treats a minor “seeking or receiving protected health care services” as a compelling reason not to call the parents³. The bill defines those services to include gender-affirming treatment and reproductive health care services. The Legislature said why: it “intends to remove barriers to accessing temporary, licensed shelter accommodations for youth seeking certain protected health care services.”⁵

The House passed the bill 57 to 39 on April 12, 2023. The Senate followed 29 to 20 on April 19. For a child in a host home without parental authorization who is seeking those services, the bill requires the program to report to the state department within 72 hours⁵. A parent’s right to know where a child is sleeping now runs through a state agency.

Parents say the law changed family life

The Ninth Circuit caption lists five sets of parents; Judge VanDyke’s dissent describes present allegations involving parents 1A and 1B and parents 2A and 2B. Parents 1A and 1B allege that their daughter’s public school encouraged her to “socially transition” and present as a boy without notifying them. Parents 2A and 2B allege that their older daughter “has explicitly threatened to take her younger sister to a ‘safe place’ where her transgender identity will be affirmed.”³

Judge VanDyke wrote that the parents allege Washington’s laws changed how they parent: they have declined to discuss gender with their children or share their views on gender identity. Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, joined by Judge Bumatay, he wrote that “the plaintiffs plausibly allege an unconstitutional interference with their fundamental right to parent.” Judge Tung also dissented, joined by Judges Bumatay and VanDyke, writing that the facts alleged were enough to establish standing. The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing on Dec. 5, 2025³.

Washington calls the parents’ case speculative

Washington’s best argument is a chain: the parents’ children “might run away, then might seek refuge with a licensed shelter, then might decline reconciliation services, then might accept a referral for behavioral health services, and then might ultimately receive healthcare services they oppose.” The brief adds that “Not a single minor has made use of these laws to seek gender-affirming care since their amendment in 2023.” It says only one set of parents, 2A and 2B, has non-moot claims, and that their allegations “come nowhere close to showing that these laws will ever affect them.” As for the harm parents describe now, the brief says they claim the laws hurt them by causing them “to alter their ‘parenting styles’ and what they say around their children.”⁴

Start with the first link in that chain: the one set of parents Washington says is left alleges the older daughter’s “safe place” threat already. Then ask who the statute was written for. The Legislature wrote it for youth seeking these services, so a brief that says those youth “might” appear describes the very child the law was built for. A statute built for that child cannot be dismissed as speculation about that child.

The Court should hear parents before harm

The United States says these parents belong in court. On Oct. 6 the Solicitor General moved for leave to argue as amicus supporting the petitioners². The motion says “as soon as a State restricts parents’ control over the medical care their child may access, objecting parents have standing to contest that change.” It says the United States has “a strong interest in protecting the rights of parents over the care, custody, and control of their children.”⁶

The petitioners agreed to cede ten minutes of their argument time to the United States. The motion proposes 20 minutes for petitioners, 10 for the United States, and 30 for respondents⁶.

A family should not have to lose a child to earn the right to sue. On Dec. 7 the justices can hold that when a state moves the call about a runaway child from the parents to a state agency, parents may challenge that law before the harm, not after it.

Sources

1. @firstliberty_ on X, 2026-10-24: Washington state is incentivizing kids (from any state) to run away from home and performing gender transition procedures behind their parents’ backs. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case on Dec. 7! We’re asking the Court to protect families a, 2026-10-24
2. Docket for 25-840
3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
4. In the Supreme Court of the United States
5. CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
6. 20261006182015649 IP Motion for Divided Argument