WASHINGTON — In a deeply divided ruling that intensifies the legal and cultural battle over transgender students and parental rights, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday blocked California from enforcing a state law that prohibited public schools from notifying parents if a child expresses gender nonconformity or seeks to change their name or pronouns at school.
The decision, issued on the court’s emergency docket in Mirabelli v. Bonta, reinstates a lower court injunction requiring schools to inform parents about their child’s gender expression, even as litigation continues in the Ninth Circuit. Though technically procedural — addressing whether a stay should remain in place pending appeal — the ruling reads to many observers as a substantive rebuke of California’s approach.
The unsigned per curiam opinion was split 6-3, with the court’s conservative majority granting relief to parents who challenged the law and the three liberal justices dissenting. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurrence joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissent joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
At the center of the case is a 2024 California statute signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that barred public school employees from disclosing a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity to parents without the student’s consent. The measure was the first in the nation to ban what supporters called “forced outing” policies, a sharp contrast to laws in several other states that require schools to notify parents when a student requests a name or pronoun change.
A group of parents and teachers sued, arguing that the state’s nondisclosure policy violated the Constitution. They contended that preventing parents from learning about their own child’s gender identity at school interfered with religious liberty and with longstanding due process protections recognizing parents’ primary authority over the upbringing of their children.
In granting relief to the parents, the Supreme Court’s majority concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.
“The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs. California’s policies violate those beliefs,” the court wrote.
The opinion drew heavily on the court’s 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which permitted parents to opt their children out of certain LGBTQ-themed curricular materials. In that earlier case, the court held that parents’ religious objections triggered strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Here, the majority reasoned that California’s nondisclosure policy substantially interfered with “the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,’” citing Mahmoud and earlier precedents such as Wisconsin v. Yoder. It concluded that the policy likely could not survive strict scrutiny.
The court also found the parents likely to succeed on their Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. Relying on longstanding cases such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska, and Parham v. J.R., the majority emphasized that parents, not the state, possess primary authority over “the upbringing and education of children.”
“Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health,” the court wrote, adding that California’s policies “likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”
The case arose from a challenge brought by parents who said they were not told when their children began identifying as a different gender at school. According to the court’s opinion, one set of parents learned of their child’s gender dysphoria only after she “attempted suicide and was hospitalized.” Even after that episode, the parents alleged, school officials continued using a male name and pronouns for their daughter, citing state law.
A federal district court granted summary judgment to the parents and teachers and issued a permanent injunction preventing schools from “misleading” parents about their children’s gender presentation and requiring compliance with parents’ directives regarding names and pronouns. The Ninth Circuit stayed that injunction pending appeal, raising procedural concerns and expressing skepticism about the constitutional claims. The parents then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
In vacating the Ninth Circuit’s stay as to parents, the majority applied the court’s four-factor test for interim relief. It concluded that the parents were likely to succeed, that denial of their constitutional rights constituted irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities favored them.
“The denial of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights during the potentially protracted appellate process constitutes irreparable harm,” the court wrote, citing prior cases.
Justice Barrett’s concurrence addressed concerns about substantive due process, a doctrine that has drawn skepticism from members of the court’s conservative wing. She argued that recognizing parental rights in this context does not conflict with the court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
“The parent-applicants are likely to succeed on the merits under a straightforward application” of existing precedent, Barrett wrote. She described California’s nondisclosure policy as one that “quite obviously excludes parents from highly important decisions about their child’s mental health.”
Barrett emphasized that the court’s assessment was preliminary and tied to the question of interim relief. “The word ‘likely’ is important,” she wrote, noting that the parents must continue litigating in the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, return to the Supreme Court.
Justice Kagan’s dissent, however, read as a sweeping critique not only of the ruling but of the court’s increasing reliance on its emergency docket.
“Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction,” she wrote. She argued that the case raised novel and complex constitutional questions and that the court should have waited for the ordinary appellate process — including full briefing and oral argument — before intervening.
“The Court does all this even though the application of existing law to the case raises tricky questions, and so cries out for reflection and explanation,” Kagan wrote. “The Court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly.”
Kagan also took aim at what she described as tension in the majority’s jurisprudence on substantive due process. The Due Process Clause does not explicitly enumerate parental rights, she noted, and members of the court’s majority have previously criticized the doctrine as judicial overreach.
“Especially given the Court’s last venture into the field, today’s decision cannot but induce a strong sense of whiplash,” she wrote, contrasting the majority’s recognition of parental rights here with its rejection of abortion rights in Dobbs.
In a pointed closing, Kagan wrote that the court “would be far better equipped to draw the appropriate line and to explain its legal basis — in short, to do law in the right way — if it had followed our ordinary processes.”
Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito indicated they would have granted the application in full, extending relief beyond the parent plaintiffs. Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied it entirely.
The ruling leaves the district court’s injunction in effect as the case proceeds in the Ninth Circuit. The justices have also been asked to hear a similar case, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, though they have not yet decided whether to take it up.
The decision arrives amid intensifying legal battles over transgender students’ rights, parental authority and the role of public schools in navigating sensitive issues of gender identity.
Conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups have pushed for mandatory parental notification policies, arguing that parents have an inherent right to know about significant developments in their children’s lives.
Civil rights advocates and LGBTQ groups counter that mandatory disclosure can place vulnerable students at risk, particularly in unsupportive or abusive households.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
The SCOTUS got this one right.
Seems like the court made a huge stretch to even get involved in this case – this is a state issue not a federal one.
Religion? Really?
So here’s the basic problem with the ruling.
When my kid came out to us, they had discussed these issues for months with teachers and therapists before coming to us. If it took that long for a kid to come out to their progressive parents, imagine the uncertainty and trepidation someone might feel coming out to a parental figure who might be a good deal less supportive?
I get it, people want to have the right to be involved with their kids decisions, but reality is that kids have to come on their own terms and decide at their own time how and when to come out and in the meantime, it is much better to have them talk and discuss with responsible adults than other alternatives. This effectively cuts that off. And that means it is much more likely that they will make decisions with less responsible people which could lead to a good deal of harm.
“When my kid came out to us, they had discussed these issues for months with teachers and therapists before coming to us.”
And that is the type of thing that concerns someone like Beth (and most “normies”).
“I get it, people want to have the right to be involved with their kids decisions, but reality is that kids have to come on their own terms and decide at their own time how and when to come out and in the meantime, it is much better to have them talk and discuss with responsible adults than other alternatives.”
Kids/teenagers have sh*t for brains – THAT’s the problem. And that goes for all of us, when we were that age. Of course, a lot of parents do as well, but it’s somewhat less-likely.
“This effectively cuts that off. And that means it is much more likely that they will make decisions with less responsible people which could lead to a good deal of harm.”
Yeah – teachers and counselors (see Beth’s concern).
Since you’ve mentioned this a number of times, are you allowing your kid to undergo medical sex change intervention? (Let’s call it what it actually is, and not try to hide it with euphemisms.)
“Kids/teenagers have sh*t for brains – THAT’s the problem”
Really, Ron? You know this how? How many teenagers have you raised?
I was one (as were my friends), and can speak on their behalf.
Complete and total sh*t for brains, for awhile.
Looking back (starting in my early 20s), I still can’t believe some of the things I said, did, or witnessed.
Just yesterday, I suspect that we saw some kid on an e-bike literally kill an older bicyclist in Davis. And if that’s the case, that kids’ parents also had sh*t for brains in regard to allowing him to have an electric motorcycle, riding on bike paths.
About a week ago, I saw some kid riding one of those things at around 45 mph on Fifth Street.
Too easy
So you never raised a teenager, nor any kids? Never interacted with the parents of your teenage kids’ friends?
How many transgender people do you know?
Sure – I interacted with the parents of my teenage friends. Not sure what your point is.
I worked for someone (an upper-level supervisor) whom I suspect was what we formerly-called a transexual. Nice person, seemed well-adjusted (more than most people in that place). But honestly, this is just a “guess” since I didn’t ask.
There does seem to be some people for whom such decisions work out – like Christine Jorgensen. Saw a PBS program on her before.
But they’re not “transgendered” – they’re “transexual” once medical interventions are involved. It’s obviously a very big decision, and is costly in more than one way.
I personally don’t believe in “gender” – even if it aligns with one’s sex. If someone is thinking about their “gender”, they probably have too much time on their hands and are too self-focused. Or, are a confused teenager who also has too much time on their hands.
Get back to doing those chores (milking the cows, etc.), and you won’t be so concerned about your “gender”.
Teenagers are as diverse a group as any demographic. Some know exactly who they are, what they want to do, what their political and religious views are. Others are still finding their way on those issues.
But sexuality, sexual orientation, gender, how to present one-self and how willing one is to go against the norms are things that happen in the teenage years. Puberty and cultural expectations about gender and relationships happen at 10, 11, 12. Differences suddenly matter a lot. If you don’t feel that your gender matches your sex or the expectations of your friends and family, it will likely lead to considerable distress.
You won’t feel that you should have to wait until you’re 18 to make decisions about how you’re going to present yourself.
People like to assert that adolescents don’t know themselves, cannot make rational decisions. The patronizing comments that are made, in my opinion, come from places of ignorance. Nobody who spends a lot of time with young adults would agree with a comment like “teenagers have ___ for brains.” It would be understood to be a denigrating generalization from someone who is incapable of seeing them as individuals.
Adolescents can join the military.
They can decide where they are going to go to college and move there.
They can get birth control without parental consent as early as age 12.
They can qualify for emancipation in California at 14.
They can and should participate in decisions about their own medical care.
The idea that parents will always be the best people to go to first is not accurate.
My experiences interacting with teenage friends of my kids, and their parents, informed me quickly that some people have no idea what their kids are doing or thinking, some have very poor communication within their families, and some have very questionable judgment. There were teenagers sleeping and eating at my house whose parents didn’t know or care where they were. Substance abuse and self-absorption were common issues with parents.
CPS is not an effective tool for these problems. Lots of kids just tough it out until they can leave. It would be very useful for those kids to have trusted adults who can be supportive. Mandating that counselors and teachers report makes that impossible.
Of course, it would be best if the parents are brought into the conversation as early as possible, if they will be supportive of their kids and understanding of their distress and can help guide healthy outcomes. Social transitioning can be a really important part of getting to those healthy outcomes. Knowing how to even broach the subject, how to deal with the responses, finding common ground — those are things that often benefit from the presence of an outside voice. Someone who can be a sounding board, or even help to facilitate the conversations.
But unfortunately, there are many parents who respond to kids coming out as trans or gay by throwing the kid out of the house, refusing to acknowledge them, or ordering them not to discuss it. Forcing them back into the closet. Or the parents disagree, and the child has to choose.
So, no support at home, no support at school? What do you think is likely to be the outcome of that?
“So, no support at home, no support at school? What do you think is likely to be the outcome of that?”
That type of question is far more broad than “gender”.
It’s the reason that some communities have far more crime than others. (Parents who aren’t “qualified” to have kids.) Probably also the same reason that some parents allow their teenagers to have illegal electric motorcycles (and I suspect we’ve just seen the result of that).
Again, I personally don’t believe in gender. And from what I can tell, gender is indeed a “belief” itself. Can’t help but think of the word “soul” in a religious context. Do souls (or whatever our lives actually consists of) have a gender or sex? The core of our being, as it were?
I believe in sex (and that it’s not “assigned” at birth – it’s observed).
If someone “feels” that their sex doesn’t align with their “identity” or “gender” (whatever that means), I’d look for a biological or psychological “cause”, rather than a belief. In other words, what is causing the belief. (I sure wouldn’t be looking for a medical intervention as the “first step” to address an unexplained belief.)
Seems to me that a very high percentage of young people who have “gender dysphoria” usually have a plethora of psychological problems beyond that. And if that’s true, then it also seems likely that their “dysphoria” is also a psychological problem (not a physical one, and not a “belief” with no basis or reason whatsoever). For that matter, without even a definition of “man” or “woman”.
Now that I’m typing this, I’m wondering if everyone who believes in “gender dysphoria” has just gone insane.
Here is an NIH meta-study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12604846/
Well said Don. Very well said!
Apparently, I’d be a different type of parent than some of you whom convinced yourself that pursuit of medical sex-change intervention is a reasonable thing to do (rather than an insane thing to do). A psychological/mental problem, rather than a physical one.
In other words, totally disregarding the potential “cause” and treating the symptom, instead.
But unlike Beth, I don’t care that much if a system is encouraging gullible parents/patients to pursue it. If you want to cut off your wee-wees because they bother you or your kids, I might even hand you the scalpel. But I’d prefer it if my tax dollars didn’t pay for that.
Granted, there are people committed to this. But I was just reading that even someone like Christine Jorgensen had other psychological challenges.
Unless there’s some kind of underlying biological influence, it’s a mental illness, folks. Like bulimia.
Serious, life-changing medical intervention based on a belief or a feeling that can’t even be defined.
I do recall that the “argument” initially consisted of claims that minors aren’t undergoing these interventions – which turned out to be a politically-based lie.
Those who are truly opposed to this view parents and systems which allow this as committing a form of child abuse.
There’s reasons that European countries (usually held up as a model of progressivism) have been increasingly prohibiting these medical interventions.
“Apparently, I’d be a different type of parent than some of you whom convinced yourself that pursuit of medical sex-change intervention is a reasonable thing to do (rather than an insane thing to do). A psychological/mental problem, rather than a physical one.”
In part because you are making decisions in the abstract rather than facing a real world dilemma.
You and Don can make a claim that I’m not “personally” qualified to weigh in, but there’s quite a few parents who have more extreme views than I do (regarding this being a form of child abuse).
Yes, it sounds like a dilemma for a parent faced with this (not to mention the kid).
There’s reasons that someone like Beth blames the system (see your own example of your kid “speaking with teachers/counselors” before coming to you).
But I’ll give you credit (for what that’s worth) for at least not being defensive (unlike another commenter on here).
To me, the question would come down to the apparent fact that there’s some people who probably are happier (long-term) as a result of undergoing these interventions, regardless of the underlying cause. The problem is that we don’t know “which” ones that would be, in advance. And when you’re dealing with minors, that makes the answer even more difficult to determine.
Meanwhile, their bodies are undergoing irreversible changes as a result of their own biology – baked in at conception.
You are arguing from the perspective of someone who made terrible decisions and using that to justify your position. I think that’s problematic at best.
I made some decisions when I was young, that likely had some negative impacts on my subsequent life. And truth be told, my parents should have intervened more (but couldn’t handle it).
But nothing THIS serious, and nothing that “unordinary”.
Seems like you haven’t been around teenagers at all.
Why is it that I was able to (accurately) guess the approximate age and sex of the person on the e-bike that was involved in a fatal crash a couple of days ago?
And why did his parents allow him to have that thing? (I would suspect that it was an “illegal” model, as well.)
You’re aware, I assume, of crime rates among juveniles, their high rate of vehicular accidents, etc. (Certainly, insurance companies are aware of the latter.)
That’s not what we’re talking about.
“When my kid came out to us, they had discussed these issues for months with teachers and therapists before coming to us.”
This is probably the most-revealing (and damning thing) you’ve ever said – in support of the concerns of someone like Beth. And yet, you can’t even see it.
Beth’s kid doesn’t talk to her, mine does.
And yet, you just said this:
“When my kid came out to us, they had discussed these issues for months with teachers and therapists before coming to us.”
This is EXACTLY the type of thing that people like Beth are concerned about – the influence of the school district who are already on board with what she would call “gender ideology” – INSTEAD OF the parent.
In your case, you were an “easy sell”, apparently – since you already trust those people (and are probably already on board with that).
Is your kid now undergoing medical intervention?
I contend that Beth handled it completely wrong and alienated her child as a result of that
As a parent I would’ve wanted to know and I think a huge majority of other parents feel the same. Good for you that you have full trust in the school system, others don’t.
But as you stated: “I get it, people want to have the right to be involved with their kids decisions”.
Damn right they do.
“it is much better to have them talk and discuss with responsible adults than other alternatives”, alternatives other than their actual parents? Why is it parents get a bad rap and not the benefit of the doubt?
Maybe because I’ve seen so many parents ruin relationships with their kids because their kids come out as gay or trans. Delicate issues have to be handled delicately, and there are too many emotions in this sometimes.