The law suit brought by West Warwick mom, Jane Doe, and her lawyer at the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, is now moving through the Rhode Island Supreme Court. In appeal of an adverse Superior Court ruling last year, the plaintiff’s filed her brief with the court on August 12, as prepared by attorney Gregory Piccirilli.

The lawsuit seeks to repeal a RI Department of Education regulation that essentially mandates that school department officials must affirm the gender-denying dysphoria of middle and high school student, and may do so without informing the student’s parents.

Daughter Doe, after 2 years of attempting to live a secret double life as a boy at school (aided by school officials), but as a girl at home … eventually succumbed to the stress and anxiety and attempted to commit suicide. It was only during the daughter’s recovery at the hospital did Jane Doe discover the secret … which was fully supported by the RIDE regulation.

In the Superior Court decision against Doe, the woke judge, amazingly ruled that not only is “gender” a fluid and ambiguous term, but that “sex” is similarly ambiguous … therefore other state laws that might govern the RIDE rule were subject to one’s interpretation of the term “sex”.

However, the US Supreme Court decision in June of 2026 put an end to this kind on non-sensical and un-scientific ruling. Per the plaintiff’s brief:

“In that case, West Virginia v. B. P. J.,, all nine Justices found:
The term “sex” in the 1972 Title IX statute, the 1974 Javits Amendment, and the 1975 Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity,  particularly in the sports context. See, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973) (plurality opinion) (“sex” is “an immutable characteristic”).”

Justice Thomas’s concurrence goes further, explicitly stating: “Sex is an immutable ‘biological’ characteristic,” distinguishing it from gender dysphoria (described as mutable).”

In addition to claiming that the Superior Court judge improperly found that the term “sex” is ambiguous, Doe’s brief also questions whether “the Trial Court used the wrong statutory construction to glean the intent of the legislature, which intent was clearly to use the term “sex” to mean either male or female.”

Oral arguments at the RI Supreme Court are not expected to be heard until sometime in 2027.

Full coverage of the Daughter Doe tragedy and the Jane Doe lawsuit can be found at: OceanStateCurrent.com/Jane-Doe