DOJ Sues Anne Arundel County Schools Over Gender Identity Policy, FERPA and PPRA Claims Explained

The U.S. Department of Justice has sued the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, alleging that the school system’s policies on student names, pronouns and gender identity violate two federal laws that protect parents’ access to their children’s education records and their rights over certain sensitive student surveys.

The case, United States v. Board of Education of Anne Arundel County, No. 1:26-cv-04499-CJC, was filed October 27, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. It alleges that Anne Arundel County Public Schools (AACPS) let staff collect and act on students’ self-identified names, pronouns and gender identities without telling parents, treated that information as confidential even when parents asked for it, and reported it to the Maryland State Department of Education without parental notice. The government relies on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA).

AACPS disputes the allegations. No court has found a violation, and as of October 30, 2026, no merits ruling or injunction has been identified. Everything below describing the government’s claims is an allegation.

DOJ v. Anne Arundel County Public Schools: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Plaintiff	United States of America (DOJ Civil Rights Division)
Defendant	Board of Education of Anne Arundel County
Case number	1:26-cv-04499-CJC
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Filed	October 27, 2026
Federal laws	FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; PPRA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232h
School policy challenged	Policy JQ and Administrative Regulation JQ-RA
Family described in the complaint	John Doe, Jane Doe and their minor daughter, Mary Doe (pseudonyms)
Relief requested	Declarations and court-ordered changes to policies and procedures
Damages demanded	None specified
Class action or claim form?	No
District’s position	Disagrees with the allegations and says it complies with FERPA and PPRA
Related private case	Doe v. Bedell, No. 1:26-cv-02690-RDB (D. Md.), filed July 8, 2026
Status	Newly filed; no merits ruling identified

Why Is the Justice Department Suing Anne Arundel County Public Schools?

According to the complaint, AACPS policy directs staff to solicit, document and act on students’ self-identified names, pronouns and gender identities without notifying parents. The DOJ also alleges that the policy lets principals limit parental involvement in a student’s support plan when they find a genuine safety concern, and that AACPS reports gender identity information to the state education department without giving parents notice or a chance to challenge its accuracy.

The government’s position is that a school cannot keep education records about a child while blocking parents from the statutory rights to review and challenge them. The DOJ describes the practices as secretly facilitating a student’s “social transition,” meaning use of a different name or pronouns, related records and a support plan. The complaint does not allege that AACPS provided medical treatment of any kind. AACPS has not admitted violating either law.

What Happened to the Doe Family?

The complaint centers on a family identified by pseudonyms: John and Jane Doe and their daughter Mary, who began her senior year at an AACPS high school in fall 2026. The parents are described as practicing Christians whose religious beliefs informed their objections. The court has not verified the family’s account.

• December 10, 2025. The parents received an email from a staff member about a lab experiment that referred to their daughter by a male name. The complaint says the employee tried to recall the email, sent a corrected version, and then claimed it went to the wrong addresses. When pressed, the employee allegedly admitted the explanation was untrue and said Mary had asked to use that name. The employee also allegedly said staff had individually asked students about preferred names and pronouns early in the semester.
• Records requests. The parents asked for the policies and records documenting their daughter’s responses. The complaint says an assistant principal pointed to Regulation JQ-RA as requiring staff to respect the student’s stated preference, and that the records were not provided.
• May 1, 2026. A field-trip roster emailed to parents allegedly listed the alternate name instead of Mary’s legal name. The employee first said it belonged to another student, then allegedly acknowledged it was Mary and apologized. The parents withdrew her from the trip and asked for a refund.
• May 18 and June 6, 2026. The parents renewed written requests to use their daughter’s legal name and for records on the collection of her name, pronouns and gender identity information. The principal reportedly replied that the regulation required staff to honor the student’s preference, and the parents say they were told some records required an appointment or subpoena.

What Do AACPS Policy JQ and Regulation JQ-RA Say?

Policy JQ, effective June 16, 2021, recognizes students’ right to be addressed by names and pronouns matching their gender identity and to use facilities matching the identity they consistently demonstrate.

Regulation JQ-RA, effective September 6, 2022, implements it. The DOJ says it tells staff to honor self-identified names and pronouns regardless of official records, treats gender identity information as confidential medical information, and lets a principal limit parental participation in developing a plan on a genuine safety concern.

Did AACPS Change Its Policy Before the Lawsuit?

Yes. On August 18, 2026, the school board revised Section D(4) of Regulation JQ-RA to say FERPA generally protects personally identifiable information in education records and that nothing in the regulation interferes with parents’ FERPA rights, including the right to inspect a student’s complete record. On August 19, Superintendent Dr. Mark T. Bedell told families that no policy, guideline or practice may interfere with parental FERPA rights over records about gender identity, transgender status, sexual orientation, preferred names and pronouns.

The DOJ acknowledges the amendments but says they changed only two subsections and left other provisions untouched, so problems with parent notice, record access, correction procedures and student evaluations remain.

What Does FERPA Require Schools to Do for Parents?

FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, applies to schools that receive certain U.S. Department of Education funds. It gives parents of minor students several rights:

1. Inspect and review education records. Schools must provide access within a reasonable time, no later than 45 days after a request (34 C.F.R. § 99.10). Education records generally directly relate to a student and are maintained by the school or someone acting for it.
2. Request correction. Parents can ask to amend records they believe are inaccurate, misleading or a privacy violation. A school need not agree with every request.
3. A hearing if the school refuses. If the school declines to amend, parents generally get a hearing and may add a written statement to the record (34 C.F.R. § 99.21).
4. Protection against unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable information without consent, subject to exceptions.

FERPA rights transfer to the student at age 18 or on attending a postsecondary institution.

A key dispute here is whether the materials at issue are “education records.” Not every conversation between a teacher and a student is one, and AACPS may argue particular notes or conversations fall outside the definition.

What Is the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment?

PPRA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232h, gives parents rights over certain surveys, analyses and evaluations involving eight protected categories: political beliefs, mental or psychological problems, sex behavior or attitudes, illegal or demeaning behavior, critical appraisals of close family relationships, privileged relationships (such as with lawyers, doctors or clergy), religious beliefs and income.

Gender identity is not one of the eight named categories. The DOJ argues that AACPS’s individual questioning to develop support plans reached protected subjects such as psychological matters, sexual attitudes and family relationships, and that AACPS did not get required prior written consent or give notice and an opt-out. PPRA does not require parental consent for every teacher-student conversation, so whether these discussions qualify as covered surveys or evaluations is for the court.

Related article: Closed School Discharge Lawsuit, Student Borrowers Sue Education Department Over Denied Loan Relief

What Are the Eight Counts in the DOJ Complaint?

Counts	Provision	Allegation
I and II	20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)	Unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable student information, including reporting to the state education department
III and IV	20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(2)	No adequate chance for parents to challenge and correct records
V and VI	20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(1)(A)	Denying or effectively preventing parents from inspecting records
VII	20 U.S.C. § 1232h(b)	No prior written parental consent for covered sensitive surveys or evaluations
VIII	20 U.S.C. § 1232h(c)(2)	No required notice and opt-out for other covered surveys

These are allegations, not findings.

Why Can the DOJ Sue a School Board Under FERPA and PPRA?

The government is not acting as the Doe family’s lawyer. Its authority rests partly on enforcement of conditions on federal education funding, and the complaint invokes 20 U.S.C. § 1234c(a)(4). The complaint says the Secretary of Education found AACPS out of substantial compliance with FERPA on July 22, 2026, and with PPRA on September 3, 2026, and that DOJ sent notices demanding the practices stop on July 29 (FERPA) and September 10 (PPRA). The Education Department had announced enforcement action on July 27, 2026.

The DOJ complaint mainly seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Filing it does not automatically cut off federal funding.

What Is the DOJ Asking the Court to Order?

The DOJ seeks declarations that AACPS’s policies and practices violate FERPA and PPRA, an injunction against enforcing Regulation JQ-RA or similar policies that deny the protected parental rights, a process for parents to challenge records and get hearings, correction or deletion of inaccurate or inappropriate information, parental access to records, prior written consent for covered surveys and evaluations, and notice with an opt-out for other covered surveys, plus costs and further relief. It does not seek a payment to parents, and no compensation fund or claim form exists.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said schools should not discuss preferred pronouns or gender identity with a student without parental notification and consent, and that the department will end policies that keep parents in the dark.

What Is Anne Arundel County Public Schools’ Response?

The district said it disagrees with the allegations and stands by its compliance with FERPA and PPRA, that it had been in regular good-faith contact with the Justice Department, and that it considered the decision to sue regrettable. It said it would respond through court filings.

AACPS also points to its August amendments recognizing parental FERPA rights. The government answers that a general statement of FERPA rights does not cure other provisions that still allow staff to withhold records or limit parent involvement. The court will compare the actual policy language, practices and records against the statutes.

What Do Critics of the Lawsuit Say?

Some advocacy outlets covering the case argue that AACPS’s policy neither required nor prohibited notifying parents of a student’s gender identity, so while individual staff actions might be questioned, the policy itself may not violate FERPA. Others note the district changed its policy under the threat of lost federal funding. The government’s supporters, including the parents’ lawyers at America First Legal, say the lawsuit enforces parents’ statutory and constitutional rights. These are competing characterizations, and the court has not resolved them.

Is There a Separate Lawsuit Against AACPS Over the Same Issue?

Yes. John and Jane Doe filed Doe et al. v. Bedell et al., No. 1:26-cv-02690-RDB, on July 8, 2026, in the same federal court against the Board of Education, Superintendent Bedell and other officials. They allege First and Fourteenth Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violations of the Maryland Constitution, arguing AACPS facilitated their daughter’s social transition without telling them. America First Legal represents them.

The DOJ case is different: it is a federal enforcement action about FERPA and PPRA, while the parents’ case asserts constitutional claims. On October 27, 2026, the DOJ also filed a statement of interest in the parents’ case, according to America First Legal. A statement of interest lets the government state its view on legal questions but does not make it a plaintiff. Dr. Bedell is a defendant in the parents’ case, not an individual defendant in the DOJ complaint.

What Do the Maryland Lawsuits Mean for Parents and Students?

• Request records. Under FERPA, parents can ask in writing to inspect education records. Identify the records, keep a copy, and expect access within 45 days.
• Seek corrections. Parents can ask to amend records they think are inaccurate or misleading. If the school refuses, FERPA provides a hearing and the right to add a statement.
• Complain to the Department of Education. The Student Privacy Policy Office accepts FERPA and PPRA complaints at studentprivacy.ed.gov. That is separate from the DOJ case.
• Other districts are not automatically affected. The defendant is one school board. Other districts have their own policies and circumstances.

No one can join the DOJ case; it is not a class action. Families with their own concerns may wish to consult a qualified education-law attorney.

What Prior Federal Actions Led to the Anne Arundel Lawsuit?

The Education Department’s Student Privacy Policy Office announced on July 27, 2026, with DOJ, that it was pursuing enforcement against Anne Arundel County Public Schools and Ann Arbor Public Schools in Michigan, saying AACPS improperly classified gender identity information as confidential medical information that could not go to parents. The department had flagged withholding gender identity information from parents as an enforcement priority in a March 2025 letter to state education officials.

On September 1, 2026, DOJ sued Unified School District No. 500 in Kansas City, Kansas, on similar statutory theories, though the policies and facts differ. See AllAboutLawyer’s DOJ Sues Kansas City KS Schools: FERPA, PPRA Explained.

Key Dates in the Anne Arundel County Schools Case

Date	Development
June 16, 2021	Policy JQ takes effect
September 6, 2022	Regulation JQ-RA takes effect
December 10, 2025	Doe family receives an email using a different name for their daughter, per the complaint
May 1, 2026	Field-trip roster allegedly lists the alternate name
May 18 and June 6, 2026	Parents request records; principal responds
July 8, 2026	Doe v. Bedell filed
July 22, 2026	Education Secretary finds AACPS out of substantial compliance with FERPA
July 27, 2026	Education Department and DOJ announce enforcement action
July 29, 2026	DOJ FERPA notice to AACPS
August 18 and 19, 2026	Board amends Regulation JQ-RA; superintendent messages families
September 3, 2026	Education Secretary finds AACPS out of substantial compliance with PPRA
September 10, 2026	DOJ PPRA notice to AACPS
October 27, 2026	DOJ files suit and a statement of interest in Doe v. Bedell

What Happens Next in the Anne Arundel County Schools Case?

AACPS must respond by filing an answer or a motion, likely a motion to dismiss arguing that some theories fail or that the August amendments cure the concerns. If the case proceeds, discovery may focus on the meaning of Regulation JQ-RA, how records are kept, how parent requests were handled and what the student discussions involved. If the government proves violations, the court could order declaratory or injunctive relief requiring policy changes. Doe v. Bedell continues separately. As of October 30, 2026, no order suspending Regulation JQ-RA has been identified, and the policy should not be described as invalidated.

Related School Policy and Parental Rights Cases

• DOJ Sues Kansas City KS Schools: FERPA, PPRA Explained covers another federal action under the same statutes.
• Hollidaysburg LGBTQ+ Display Lawsuit Judge Denies Motion To Dismiss concerns a Pennsylvania school dispute over LGBTQ+ expression.
• Kathy McCord vs. South Madison Schools Settlement, What the $195,000 Case Means for Educators involves an Indiana employee and student gender identity policies.

These cases involve different statutes, parties and remedies and do not decide the Maryland dispute.

Frequently Asked Questions About the DOJ Maryland School Lawsuit

Why is the DOJ suing Anne Arundel County Public Schools?

It alleges AACPS policies let staff collect and use student gender identity information without notifying parents, restricted parents’ access to related records, and did not follow PPRA requirements for sensitive surveys and evaluations.

What is the case number?

United States v. Board of Education of Anne Arundel County, No. 1:26-cv-04499-CJC, D. Md.

Which federal laws are involved?

FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) and PPRA (20 U.S.C. § 1232h).

Is the school being sued just for using preferred pronouns?

The claims concern policies that allegedly direct staff to honor self-identified names and pronouns while limiting parental access to related information and records, not a rule that every use of a preferred pronoun violates federal law.

Did Anne Arundel County Public Schools change its policy?

Yes. On August 18, 2026, the board revised parts of Regulation JQ-RA to recognize parental FERPA rights. The DOJ says that did not resolve the remaining issues.

Is this the same as Doe v. Bedell?

No. Doe v. Bedell is the parents’ private constitutional lawsuit. The DOJ case is a separate federal enforcement action.

Can parents join the DOJ lawsuit?

No. It is not a class action and has no claim form.

Has the court ruled that AACPS violated FERPA or PPRA?

No ruling on the merits has been identified as of October 30, 2026.

Could AACPS lose federal funding?

Federal law provides enforcement mechanisms for recipients out of compliance, but filing this complaint does not automatically end funding.

Is the DOJ seeking money for the parents?

No specific damages or compensation fund is requested.

Sources

1. Complaint, United States v. Board of Education of Anne Arundel County, No. 1:26-cv-04499-CJC, filed October 27, 2026.
2. DOJ, Justice Department Sues to Stop Secret Gender Transitions at Anne Arundel County Public Schools, October 27, 2026.
3. Reuters (via WKZO), US Justice Department sues Maryland school district over transgender policies, October 27, 2026.
4. CBS News Baltimore, Anne Arundel schools amend gender identity policy after Trump administration threat, August 19, 2026.
5. Maryland Matters, Anne Arundel schools’ amended gender policy; DOJ still files a lawsuit, October 28, 2026.
6. U.S. Department of Education, enforcement announcement, July 27, 2026.
7. Doe et al. v. Bedell et al., No. 1:26-cv-02690-RDB.
8. America First Legal, announcement of DOJ suit and statement of interest, October 27, 2026.
9. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, § 1232h and § 1234c.
10. Department of Education, FERPA guidance and PPRA guidance.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the DOJ complaint and announcement, Reuters, CBS News Baltimore and Maryland Matters reporting, the Education Department announcement and the cited statutes, as of October 30, 2026. Last Updated: October 30, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney. It presents the allegations of the United States and the response of Anne Arundel County Public Schools without treating either side’s position as a final judicial finding.