PRESS RELEASE: DFI Urges Supreme Court to Protect Parental Rights and Reject Qualified Immunity Claim for California Government Officials Who Proceeded with Gender Surgery on Minor Without Parental Consent

WASHINGTON — The Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies (DFI) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Edward Allyn Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California, urging the Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision shielding California government officials from liability for violating a father’s constitutional right to participate in decisions about his child’s medical care.

The case concerns University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) officials who, according to the complaint, proceeded with gender transition-related surgery on Hudacko’s minor child despite his opposition and a custody order expressly requiring his consent. Although the order gave the child’s mother sole authority over most medical decisions, it specifically preserved Hudacko’s authority over gender identity-related surgery.

The Ninth Circuit granted the UCSF officials qualified immunity, a doctrine that protects government officials from certain civil damages claims. The court reasoned that Hudacko had not identified clearly established law addressing sufficiently similar circumstances. DFI argues that this approach allows officials to evade accountability for violating longstanding constitutional rights simply because no prior case involves the same factual situation.

“Government officials cannot treat a parent’s constitutional rights as an obstacle to work around and then expect qualified immunity to excuse their conduct,” said Don Daugherty, Senior Litigation Counsel at DFI. “These officials knew that a court order required this father’s consent, knew he opposed the surgery, and proceeded anyway. The Supreme Court should take this case and make clear that qualified immunity is not a license to disregard the constitutional rights of parents.”

DFI’s brief explains that courts must consider what reasonable officials with the same responsibilities and authority would have understood about the constitutional limits on their conduct. Unlike police officers making split-second decisions in an emergency, the UCSF officials had time to seek court authorization before proceeding with an elective procedure.

The brief builds on DFI’s work defending parental rights, including its amicus brief in Mahmoud v. Taylor and congressional testimony on that decision’s implications for families.