Supreme Court Blocks California’s Secret Transition Policies, Restores Parents’ Rights

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ stay on Mirabelli v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s policies regarding gender transitions for minors in public schools. The ruling restores a statewide injunction and affirms parents’ constitutional rights to be informed about and involved in decisions concerning their children’s well-being.

Background of the Case

The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, was brought by parents and teachers who objected to two specific policies adopted by California public schools. These policies prevented schools from notifying parents if a student requested to change their gender identity at school, unless the student explicitly consented to parental notification. The policies mandated that schools use a student’s preferred pronouns and name, regardless of parental wishes.¹

In 2023, teachers initially filed suit seeking exemptions from the school district’s policies. The case expanded to include state officials as defendants and ultimately incorporated parents as plaintiffs seeking class-wide relief. A district court certified classes for both parents and teachers and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Ninth Circuit’s Intervention and Supreme Court Review

A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the permanent injunction, citing concerns about improper class certification and the breadth of the injunction. The panel also determined that the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was not controlling.¹

The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a vacation of the Ninth Circuit’s stay order. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Supreme Court’s Decision

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, specifically regarding the rights of the parent plaintiffs. The Court found that the parents were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, based on irreparable harm.¹

The Court’s opinion emphasized that California’s policies “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” It reaffirmed that parents, not government officials, hold constitutional authority over decisions regarding their children’s upbringing and education. The Court also noted that the state’s interest in student safety could be served by allowing religious exemptions while precluding gender-identity disclosure to parents who would engage in abuse.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurred, highlighting that California’s nondisclosure policy excludes parents from critical decisions about their child’s mental health and is unlikely to satisfy heightened scrutiny. She cited instances where parents learned of their child’s transition only after a suicide attempt, and even after such tragic events, school administrators continued to withhold information.¹

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, criticizing the Supreme Court’s handling of the case. The dissent argued that the Court rushed to a decision with inadequate briefing and without full consideration of the legal issues involved.¹

Implications and Next Steps

This ruling is considered a significant victory for parental rights advocates nationwide. It sends a strong message to school districts across the country regarding the importance of parental involvement in decisions concerning their children’s education and well-being. The case will likely continue to be litigated as it returns to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hold special sittings at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas on March 9, 2026, and in Portland and San Francisco on the same day.¹