Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
The U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory Monday to those who argue that schools should inform parents if their child changes their gender identity, even without the student’s consent.
In the California case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, the conservative justices reinstated a December district court decision that temporarily blocked schools from keeping such information private or from changing names and pronouns when parents say it violates their religious beliefs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had granted Attorney General Rob Bonta’s request for an emergency stay while the district court hears the case, and Monday’s order overruled that stay.
The Supreme Court relied on last year’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the justices sided with religious parents who wanted to opt their elementary school children out of lessons related to LGBTQ-themed storybooks.
“California’s policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands,“ the order said, adding that “parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed” at the district court level.
Referencing one of the families in the case, they wrote: “At the beginning of their daughter’s eighth-grade year, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Only then did her parents learn from a doctor that she had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school.”
Ed. Dept. Says California Violated Law by Concealing Students’ Gender Identity
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised the decision. “Huge win for parental rights in education!” she posted on X. The administration agrees with many conservative groups that schools have kept parents in the dark about their children’s social transition and should proactively notify them when their child asks to use different pronouns or bathrooms.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s temporary injunction said that California schools can’t mislead parents about their children’s gender identity and must prominently display wording that says parents “have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”
Bonta has argued that the state’s policies, including a 2024 law barring districts from forcing teachers to “out” students, don’t prevent schools from sharing information with parents. But he said Benitez’s blanket ruling — and the Supreme Court’s decision to keep it in place — puts students at risk if they’re not ready to disclose their gender identity. Advocates for LGBTQ students agree.
“In its rush to expand religious influence in public schools, the Supreme Court prioritized religious exemptions over children’s success and well-being and trampled on the rights and futures of transgender students without considering the full facts of the case,” Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement.
‘The court is impatient’
That’s the same point that Justice Elena Kagan, one of the three liberals on the court, made in her dissent, which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. Kagan agreed that “parents have rights” when it comes to their children’s “life choices,” but that the court should wait until the case plays out before the Ninth Circuit.
“The court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly,” she wrote.
If the conservatives wanted to consider the “thorny legal issues” involved, she added, they should agree to hear a Massachusetts case, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, that makes similar arguments for parental rights.
“By recent count, almost 40 cases raising due process and/or free exercise objections to similar school policies are currently in the judicial system,” she wrote. “By granting certiorari on one (or more) of those cases, the court could ensure that the issues raised by such policies receive the careful, disciplined consideration they merit.”
The court has repeatedly delayed its decision whether to grant or deny a hearing in the Foote case and another one from Florida. Both are scheduled for consideration again this Friday.
In a separate statement concurring with the majority, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined, Justice Amy Coney Barrett disagreed that the court was hasty in overruling the Ninth Circuit.
“Under California’s policy, parents will be excluded — perhaps for years — from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing,” she wrote.
Teachers from the Escondido Union School District, near San Diego, originally filed the case in 2023, saying the state’s guidance violates their Christian faith. Parents later joined the case. Without giving a reason, the court denied the teachers’ request to set aside the Ninth Circuit’s stay, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have sided with the teachers as well. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she would have denied the relief for all of the plaintiffs.
David Mishook, an attorney with F3 Law, which represents California school districts, said that given the Supreme Court’s “strong language,” he wouldn’t be surprised if Bonta drops any challenge to Judge Benitez’s injunction.
While neither Benitez nor the Supreme Court come right out and say that teachers must proactively disclose a child’s gender identity to parents, the order “suggests that teachers, and by extension their employers, now stand at great risk if they do not discuss gender expression with parents.”
Trump Administration Takes on School Emails as Parental Rights Issue
The court’s ruling follows a late January decision in which the Education Department concluded that California’s policies violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which gives parents the right to inspect their children’s educational records. She pointed to instances in which schools used trans students’ preferred names and pronouns in school databases, but parents would see legal names when they logged in.
The state risks losing over $5 billion in federal funds if it doesn’t comply with the department’s demands, including allowing districts to pass parental notification policies.
Bonta promptly sued the department, saying the penalty would cause “imminent and irreparable injury to California.”
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
