A federal appeals court has put on hold a battle about a 2022 Florida law that restricts instruction about gender identity and sexual orientation in schools, after attorneys said they were in settlement talks.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit last week issued a stay of an appeal filed by students, parents and teachers after a federal district judge in February rejected their constitutional challenge to the high-profile law.
The stay came after a joint motion filed Aug. 15 that said the parties were "engaged in active settlement discussions."
"Should the parties' settlement discussions no longer appear to be productive, any party may withdraw its consent to the stay by filing a notice with the court," the joint motion said.
Last week's order directed the parties to file status reports every 60 days starting Oct. 2.
The documents did not provide details of behind-the-scenes discussions among the parties. But the case centers on a measure that Republican legislators called the "Parental Rights in Education" law and opponents labeled the "don't say gay" bill.
The law, which has drawn national attention, prevented instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade and required that such instruction be "age-appropriate … in accordance with state academic standards" in older grades.
The Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis went further this year by approving a bill to broaden the prohibition on instruction about gender identity and sexual orientation to pre-kindergarten through eighth grade.
Plaintiffs in the appeal are three LGBTQ students and 11 parents and teachers from areas such as Broward, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Orange, Pasco and St. Johns counties. Also, the LGBTQ-advocacy group Family Equality is a plaintiff.
The lawsuit alleges violation of First Amendment and equal-protection rights and of a federal law known as Title IX, which bars discrimination based on sex in education programs.
But U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor in February ruled that the plaintiffs had not "alleged sufficient facts" to show they had legal standing to challenge the law. Winsor also had rejected an earlier version of the lawsuit.
"Plaintiffs have shown a strident disagreement with the new law, and they have alleged facts to show its very existence causes them deep hurt and disappointment," the Tallahassee-based Winsor wrote in the February ruling. "But to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction, they must allege more. Their failure to do so requires dismissal."
But in a brief filed May 31, attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that Winsor erred in dismissing the case and sought to show that plaintiffs have suffered harm from the law.
"Simply put, the LGBT individual plaintiffs have personally experienced unequal and lesser treatment at the hands of teachers and officials who now restrict what they can say, read, hear, and wear," the brief said. "That constitutes injury."
Attorneys for defendants State Board of Education, Florida Department of Education and school districts have not filed a brief at the appeals court after receiving a time extension in June.
Meanwhile, Orlando-based U.S. District Judge Wendy Berger last month dismissed a separate challenge to the law filed by parents, students and a nonprofit group. Berger's ruling included a series of issues, including her conclusion that most of the plaintiffs had not shown legal standing.
As of Tuesday morning, Berger's ruling had not been appealed, according to an online docket.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
7 minute readSecond DCA Greenlights USF Class Certification on COVID-19 College Tuition Refunds
3 minute readHow Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Thursday Newspaper
- 2Public Notices/Calendars
- 3Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-117
- 4Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 5Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250