16 states petition SCOTUS to hear challenge to Washington law allowing minors to have sex changes, abortions without parental consent

The states, led by Florida and Idaho, filed an amicus brief urging the nation’s highest court to intervene in International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson. They argue the law undermines longstanding parental rights protections and could encourage minors to leave home to seek sec changes or abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Signed by then-Governor Jay Inslee in May 2023, Senate Bill 5599 amended Washington’s laws governing runaway and homeless youth shelters. Under prior law, licensed shelters were generally required to notify parents within 24 to 72 hours after admitting a minor who was away from home without permission.

SB 5599 created an exception: when a minor is seeking or receiving what state law defines as “protected health care services,” a category that includes abortions and sex changes, shelters may contact the state’s Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) instead of notifying the parents. Opponents say this allows shelters to keep a child’s whereabouts undisclosed to parents under a broad definition of “compelling reason.”

The multi-state brief argues that SB 5599 infringes on the constitutional rights of parents to direct the upbringing, care, and medical decisions of their children. The states contend that by allowing a shelter to withhold notification based on a child’s claimed need for reproductive or gender-related care, Washington effectively sidelines parental authority even in the absence of any finding of abuse or neglect.

The brief also warns that the law could incentivize minors who disagree with their parents on these issues to flee to Washington, where shelters could house them and involve the state rather than their families.

The original lawsuit was filed by parents and advocacy organizations challenging the law’s constitutionality. The plaintiffs argue the statute permits the state to conceal a child’s location and facilitate access to certain medical services without parental involvement. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the parents’ challenge on standing grounds, ruling that the plaintiffs had not yet shown they or their children had suffered a concrete injury. The appeals court concluded that the alleged harm was too speculative because it depended on whether a child might run away and seek shelter in the future.

The states’ brief disputes that conclusion, arguing that parents should not have to wait until a runaway incident occurs before seeking judicial review. They maintain that the law itself alters the parent-child dynamic and creates an ongoing risk of harm. The coalition argues the case has national implications, particularly if other states adopt similar laws. They say the dispute raises significant constitutional questions about the balance between parental rights and state authority over minors’ access to medical care.

The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case.