The Center for American Liberty filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson on behalf of detransitioners Chloe Cole, Luka Hein, and Kaya Clementine Breen in a major parental-rights challenge to Washington laws governing runaway minors seeking “gender-affirming treatment.”

Under the challenged laws, when a runaway minor seeks or receives “gender-affirming treatment,” a shelter may notify the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families instead of the child’s parents. The Department must then offer referrals for behavioral-health services, while parents may remain unaware of their child’s location and condition and reunification may be delayed.

The parents challenging the laws argue that Washington has created a pathway for the State to displace parents precisely when a child disagrees with them about gender transition.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed their challenge on standing grounds, concluding that the parents’ feared future injuries were not sufficiently immediate or certain. The parents are now asking the Supreme Court to hold that they do not have to wait until the threatened harms advance further—until a child runs away, parents are shut out of critical decisions, or irreversible treatment occurs—before challenging a law they believe violates their parental rights.

The stories of Chloe, Luka, and Clementine show why waiting can mean waiting until it is too late.

Each was a vulnerable minor struggling with serious underlying psychological issues or trauma when she entered an affirming treatment pathway. For all three, counseling and affirmation were followed by progressively more serious medical interventions.

Chloe received puberty blockers and testosterone at 13 and underwent a double mastectomy at 15. Luka underwent a double mastectomy and began testosterone at 16 and was later recommended for a hysterectomy. Clementine received puberty blockers at 12, testosterone at 13, and underwent a double mastectomy at 14 before she too was recommended for a hysterectomy.

All three later detransitioned. None can undo the permanent consequences of what happened to their bodies.

Their experiences show why a referral for “affirming” behavioral-health services cannot be treated as harmless simply because the State is not itself administering hormones or performing surgery. For Chloe, Luka, and Clementine, affirmation was not the endpoint. It was the beginning of a pathway that ultimately led to irreversible medical interventions.

That is also why the standing question before the Supreme Court matters. If parents must wait until their child has traveled far enough down that pathway before they are allowed into court, some of the very harm they seek to prevent may already be permanent.

Parents should not have to wait until the damage is done before they can defend their constitutional rights.

The Center for American Liberty is urging the Supreme Court to recognize the real-world consequences of the Ninth Circuit’s rule and allow these parents to challenge Washington’s laws before it is too late.