The Supreme Court revived a San Diego judge’s order on Monday, affirming that parents have a right to know about their child’s gender identity at school. This decision came in a 6-3 order granting an emergency appeal from lawyers for the Chicago-based Thomas More Society. They argued that the student privacy policy enforced in California infringes on parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.
“The parents object that these policies prevent schools from telling them about their children’s efforts to engage in gender transitioning at school unless the children consent to parental notification,” the court said. “The parents also take issue with California’s requirement that schools use children’s preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents’ wishes.”
The judge’s injunction “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only for those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious exemptions,” the justices added. The six conservative justices formed the majority, while the three liberal justices dissented.
Religious liberty advocates hailed the decision. Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said, “Parents’ fundamental right to raise their children according to their faith doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door. California tried cutting parents out of their children’s lives while forcing teachers to hide the school’s behavior from parents. We’re glad the Court stepped in to block this anti-family, anti-American policy.”
Background on the Case
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously put on hold a late December ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez. Judge Benitez held that the student privacy rules enforced by California school officials were unconstitutional.
“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence,” Benitez wrote. “Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence.”
The lawsuit was initially filed in 2023 by Escondido public schoolteachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, who described themselves as “devout Catholics.” They were later joined by parents in Pasadena and Clovis.
Religious Beliefs and Court Ruling
The Supreme Court’s ruling specifically refers to the parents involved in the case. “The parents who brought the case have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court stated.
The court further noted, “Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.”
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.”
Opposing Views and Legal Arguments
The 9th Circuit had sided with the state’s attorneys, arguing that the judge had misstated California law.
“The state does not categorically forbid disclosure of information about students’ gender identities to parents without student consent,” the 3-0 decision stated. “For example, guidance from the California Attorney General expressly states that schools can ‘allow disclosure where a student does not consent where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student’s wellbeing,’ and California Education Code allows disclosure to avert a clear danger to the well-being of a child.”
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, attorneys representing the parents contended that school employees are secretly encouraging gender transitions.
“California is requiring public schools to hide children’s expressed transgender status at school from their own parents, including religious parents, and to actively facilitate those children’s social transitions over their parents’ express objection,” they told the court.
“Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm. That’s why we’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene immediately,” Jonna wrote in the appeal. “Every day these gender secrecy policies stay in effect, children suffer and parents are left in the dark.”
California’s Response
California state attorneys urged the Supreme Court to put the case on hold while it is under appeal. They argued that the judge’s order “appears to categorically bar schools across the State from ever respecting a student’s desire for privacy about their gender identity or expression or respecting a student’s request to be addressed by a particular name or pronouns over a parent’s objection.”
They also warned that the order “would allow no exceptions, even for extreme cases where students or teachers reasonably fear that the student will suffer physical or mental abuse.”
—
This ruling highlights the ongoing legal and ethical debates surrounding parental rights, student privacy, and the handling of gender identity issues in public schools. The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant moment in the balance between parental authority and student protections under the law.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2026-03-02/supreme-court-california-parents-may-be-told-about-their-transgender-child-at-school
