Supreme Court: California parents may be told about their transgender child at school

WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court on Monday revived a San Diego judge’s decision, saying parents have the right to know their child’s gender identity at school.

The decision came suddenly 6-3 rows Lawyers for the Chicago-based Thomas More Society called for an emergency.

They said the student privacy policy implemented in California violates parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.

“Parents object that these policies prevent schools from telling their children about efforts to change gender at school unless the children consent to parental notification,” the court said. “Parents also meet California’s mandate that schools use children’s preferred names and pronouns regardless of parents’ wishes.”

The justices added that the judge’s injunction “does not provide relief for all parents of California public school students, only those parents who object to challenged policies or seek religious exemptions.”

Six conservatives were in the majority, while three liberals opposed.

Religious freedom advocates welcomed the decision.

“Parents’ fundamental right to raise their children in their faith does not end at the school gate,” said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “California has attempted to remove parents from their children’s lives while forcing teachers to hide the school’s behavior from parents. We are pleased that the court has stepped in to block this anti-family, anti-American policy.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had stayed a late December ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who ruled that student privacy rules enforced by school officials in California were unconstitutional.

“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be notified if their public school student child expresses gender nonconformity,” Benitez wrote. “Teachers and school personnel have a federal constitutional right to accurately notify their student’s parent or guardian when the student expresses gender nonconformity.”

Escondido public school teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, who describe themselves as “devout Catholics,” filed the lawsuit in 2023 and were later joined by parents in Pasadena and Clovis.

The Supreme Court’s decision applies only to parents.

The court stated that the parents who filed the lawsuit “have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender and feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with these beliefs.”

The court added: “Gender dysphoria is a condition that has a significant impact on a child’s mental health, but when a child shows signs of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal this information from parents and, to some extent, facilitate gender transition during school hours.”

“This is a turning point for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel to the Thomas More Society. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the country in unequivocal terms: You cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.”

The 9th Circuit agreed with state attorneys who said the judge misrepresented California law.

“The State does not categorically prohibit the disclosure of information regarding students’ gender identities to parents without the student’s permission,” they wrote in the 3-0 decision.

“For example, guidance from the California Attorney General’s Office clearly states that schools ‘may permit disclosure where the student does not consent if there is a compelling need to protect the welfare of the student,’ and the California Education Code permits disclosure to prevent an obvious danger to the welfare of a child.”

In the parents’ appeal to the Supreme Court, lawyers said school staff were secretly encouraging gender transition.

“California requires public schools to conceal children’s transgender status expressed in school from their own parents, including religious parents, and to actively facilitate the social transition of these children despite their parents’ express objections,” he told the court.

“Currently, California’s scheme to deceive parents 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 her appeal. “These gender confidentiality policies remain in place every day, children suffer and parents are left in the dark.”

Lawyers for the state of California had urged the court to put the case on hold while it appealed.

They noted that the judge’s order “categorically prohibits schools statewide from respecting a student’s request for privacy regarding his or her gender identity or expression, or from respecting a student’s request to be addressed by a specific name or pronoun, over a parent’s objection.”

They said the ruling “allows no exceptions, even in extreme cases where students or teachers reasonably fear that the student will be subjected to physical or mental abuse.”