Discouraged Disclosure Policies and Municipal Liability: Lee v. Poudre School District R-1 (10th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025)

Introduction

In Lee v. Poudre School District R-1, the Tenth Circuit addressed for the first time the question whether a public‐school district’s written and de facto policies encouraging staff to withhold or “discourage disclosure” of a student’s gender identity from parents can give rise to municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jonathan and Erin Lee and Nicolas and Linnaea Jurich sued the Poudre School District and its Board of Education on behalf of their children, C.L. and H.J., after those minors were, on the parents’ account, recruited into a Gender and Sexualities Alliance (GSA) meeting, exposed to gender‐identity lectures, given prizes for “coming out” as transgender, and coaxed not to tell their parents. After the district court dismissed their original complaint, the parents sought to amend, alleging a single Fourteenth Amendment substantive‐due‐process claim against the district for interfering with their parental right to direct their children’s upbringing. The district court denied leave to amend, concluding the parents had not plausibly alleged municipal liability. The parents appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

On April 22, 2025, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Phillips joined by Judge Matheson (with Judge McHugh concurring in the result), affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to file an amended complaint. The panel held:

1. Although parents have a recognized fundamental liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the upbringing and education of their children, the amended complaint failed to allege that Poudre School District’s policies were the “moving force” behind any constitutional injury;
2. A § 1983 claim against a municipality requires a plaintiff to plead (a) a municipal policy or custom, (b) deliberate indifference, and (c) a direct causal link between that policy and the alleged constitutional violation;
3. Here, the parents pointed to written “Guidelines for Supporting Transgender and Non-Binary Students,” a Gender Support FAQ, teacher trainings, recruitment into after-school GSA meetings, and an “Individual Gender Support Form,” but none of those policies or practices was plausibly alleged to have caused the contested injury (discouragement of parental disclosure at GSA meetings);
4. Because the parents did not show the district’s policies themselves compelled or directly caused the staff lectures, the recruitment methods, the prize‐giving, or the non-disclosure warnings, the claim failed at the pleading stage;
5. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend on futility grounds, and the judgment of dismissal was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The panel grounded its analysis in longstanding municipal‐liability doctrine under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and its progeny:

• Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978): Establishes that a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory; liability attaches only when an official policy or custom causes the constitutional violation.
• Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997): Requires that the municipal policy be the “moving force” behind the constitutional violation and that there be a “direct causal link” between policy and injury.
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000): Recognizes parents’ fundamental due‐process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children and the presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests.
• Swanson ex rel. Swanson v. Guthrie Independent School District No. I-L, 135 F.3d 694 (10th Cir. 1998): Holds that parents do not have a constitutional right to control every aspect of their children’s education in public school.

The panel also drew from cases on pleading standards (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)) and municipal‐liability tests (Finch v. Rapp, 38 F.4th 1234 (10th Cir. 2022); Waller v. City & County of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2019)).

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

1. Substantive‐due‐process right: The court acknowledged parents have a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the upbringing and education of their children (Troxel, Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters). But even assuming that the parents alleged an infringement of that right by “discouraging disclosure” of gender‐identity information, the court proceeded to the municipal‐liability inquiry.
2. Monell requirements:
   • Policy or custom: A plaintiff must identify either a formal policy, a widespread practice so persistent as to constitute custom, or one of the other recognized bases (final‐policymaker decisions, ratification, failure to train). Here the parents pointed to multiple written policies—e.g., Guidelines for Supporting Transgender Students, Gender Support FAQ, GSA meeting confidentiality approach—and various de facto practices (teacher trainings, online lists of pronouns, nondisclosure statements at GSA meetings).
   • Deliberate indifference: The municipality must have had actual or constructive notice that its policy or practice was certain or plainly obvious to cause a constitutional violation, yet consciously chose to ignore the risk. The parents did not argue this element in depth.
   • Causation (“moving force”): The heart of Monell is that the municipality’s policy itself must cause the constitutional harm, not simply an employee’s actions. Citing Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, the court stressed a “direct causal link” is required.
3. Application: Even if the district’s written and de facto policies promoted non‐disclosure or presumed that the school knew better than parents, the parents failed to allege that those policies directly compelled or caused the individual actions—recruitment to a GSA meeting under the “art club” guise, the 90-minute lecture featuring suicide statistics, LGBTQ prizes, personal contact information, and explicit advice not to tell one’s parents—that allegedly deprived them of their parental rights. Without a plausible pleading that the district’s policy was the moving force behind these discrete steps, the claim could not survive.

3. Impact on Future Cases and the Law of Parental Rights in Schools

Lee v. Poudre School District R-1 clarifies several principles:

• Monell’s rigorous causation requirement applies to claims involving school‐district policies and parental rights. Even deeply unpopular or controversial school practices will not give rise to municipal liability absent a clear nexus between policy and harm.
• Not every encouraged non‐disclosure by school staff constitutes a municipal policy violation. Schools may adopt confidential student‐support frameworks without automatically exposing themselves to § 1983 liability, provided they do not force or cause constitutional harm.
• Parents challenging school‐district policies will need to show that the district itself, through deliberate, policy‐driven decisions, directly produced the injury—mere alignment of policy and employee conduct is not enough.
• The decision underscores the delicate balance between parental rights (Troxel) and school‐district authority to craft guidelines for student support, particularly in sensitive areas such as gender‐identity issues.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantive Due Process

A constitutional doctrine protecting certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if those rights are not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution. Parents have a recognized right to direct their children’s upbringing and education.

Monell Liability

A school district (or municipality) can face liability under federal civil‐rights law only when its own policy, custom, or official action causes a deprivation of constitutional rights. It cannot be held liable simply because one of its employees violated those rights.

“Moving Force” Requirement

The policy itself must directly cause the harm. If a teacher or staff member acts on her own, without being compelled or directed by a district policy, the district cannot be held liable.

Conclusion

Lee v. Poudre School District R-1 establishes that, even where school‐district policies encourage confidentiality around students’ gender identities, parents must plead a clear causal link between those policies and any claimed infringement of their Fourteenth Amendment parental rights. The Tenth Circuit held that the parents’ proposed amended complaint failed to allege that the district’s policies were the “moving force” behind the encouragement given to students not to inform their parents. Consequently, the district court properly denied leave to amend as futile. Going forward, school districts and parents alike will look to Lee for guidance on how to structure or challenge student‐support policies in a way that anticipates—or survives—the rigorous municipal‐liability standards under § 1983.