The Supreme Court must protect a father’s court-ordered say over his child’s care
The Supreme Court must protect a father’s court-ordered veto over his son’s gender-related surgery
Seven briefs back a father’s appeal
The Supreme Court should hear Hudacko’s case because he alleges that UCSF performed a procedure in violation of the family-court order requiring his approval. Sapir posted the announcement on Oct. 20, 2026.
The Regents of the University of California first waived their right to respond1. After respondents waived their right to respond, the Court requested a response on Sept. 17, 2026; the docket sets the deadline at Nov. 18.
The court order reserved one parental veto
When Hudacko's marriage ended, an Aug. 26, 2020, California Superior Court order reserved to him approval over "any gender identity related surgery" on his minor son. On Oct. 21, 2020, Hudacko wrote to UCSF doctors Stephen Rosenthal and Diane Ehrensaft2. He says UCSF Hospital then performed a sex-change procedure on his son, a cross-sex hormone-dispensing implant, without his knowledge and "in violation of the family court order3."
He sued the University of California and the doctors, alleging they "knew they were performing surgery and knew a court order prohibited it without Hudacko’s consent or court permission2." A judge wrote one veto into that family's custody order, and Hudacko alleges the hospital went around it.
The Ninth Circuit found no clear right
The Ninth Circuit let the state defendants off. The panel’s qualified-immunity ruling left Hudacko’s claims against the state defendants dismissed. The panel's stated reason was that Hudacko "cites no clearly established law under similar facts." His application adds that the panel also found uncertainty over whether the implant fell under the custody order's surgery exception3.
Similar to what, when every custody order is written for one family and one child? Hudacko's petition says the Ninth Circuit is one of five circuits that look only to judicial decisions, while seven others allow that "other sources of law or non-legal materials, like professional knowledge, may also be examined2." In those seven circuits, what the doctors knew would count.
A disputed label cannot erase consent
The billing answers the label question. Hudacko's petition points to a United Healthcare explanation of benefits for "Surgery" services on Aug. 4, 2021. UCSF patient progress notes carry the same date2. If the insurer called it surgery, who was confused?
The field's own leaders concede how little is settled: in a July 28, 2026, court filing, WPATH described its recommendations as "opinions about subjects on which there is ‘medical and scientific uncertainty,’" according to Sapir's brief. Sapir's brief also cites a 2023 article by Michael Biggs for the point that arresting puberty at Tanner stage 2 under the Dutch Protocol is assumed to cause permanent infertility in males. Sapir argues that the weakness of that evidence should shape how courts apply qualified immunity, and that the case deserves review4. Stakes that high are why a judge gave this father the final word.
Parents need rights they can enforce
Hudacko's first question asks the Justices whether qualified immunity should be judged from the perspective of a government actor's "specialized knowledge and training." His second asks whether a parent's "right to participate in significant decisions" about a child's care clearly covers surgery to treat gender dysphoria that will sterilize the child3.
The Regents’ answer must confront whether qualified immunity can defeat a parent’s court-ordered say over his child’s care. Did UCSF know a court order required this father's consent? Did it treat his son anyway? If a judge's order cannot stop a state hospital, what can? The respondents’ answer will address Hudacko’s petition; the Justices should take the case and decide whether parents can enforce a court-ordered say over their children’s care.
Sources
FAMILY BRIEF The news and network for the American family.
