Supreme Court temporarily restores parents' right to school gender disclosures

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked California rules that limit school staff from telling parents when students use different names or pronouns at school, reinstating a lower-court injunction and clearing the way for schools to notify parents while litigation continues. The emergency order, issued March 2, came in Mirabelli v. Bonta and was released as an unsigned opinion by the court's majority.

The order restored a December ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez that had been stayed by an appeals panel in January. Judge Benitez had written, "A child's gender incongruity is a matter of health. Matters of a child's health are matters over which parents have the highest right and duty of care." The Ninth Circuit had paused Benitez's injunction on Jan. 5, citing multiple errors in his analysis, but the high court's emergency action put the district judge's block back into effect for now.

The challengers were described in court filings as Christian parents, including two devoutly Catholic married couples, and were represented by the Thomas More Society. They argued that California's privacy and anti-discrimination measures infringed on their religious and parental rights under the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment's due process protections, contending that the rules allowed schools to withhold information and facilitate a child's social transition without parental consent.

The Supreme Court's unsigned majority wrote that "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." The order was issued by a 6-3 majority, with the court's three liberal justices dissenting.

Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of litigation at the Thomas More Society, hailed the decision, saying, "No more can bureaucrats secretly facilitate a child’s gender transition while shutting out parents," and adding, "California built a wall of secrecy between parents and their own children, and the Supreme Court just tore it down. This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents’ rights to raise their children as they see fit for years to come."

California officials and supporters of the state's rules have argued that students who fear rejection or harm at home may need privacy protections. The contested state measures include provisions that limit disclosure of a student's gender identity or chosen names and pronouns to parents without the student's consent and bar automatic parental-notification policies when students change pronouns or gender expression at school. Critics warn the Supreme Court's action could expose vulnerable students to harm if schools are forced to share information they sought to keep private.

The emergency order is an interim procedural step and does not resolve the underlying constitutional questions. The litigation will proceed in the lower courts, and further appeals remain possible. The case unfolds against a broader national backdrop of similar disputes: the Supreme Court is also considering whether to take up a separate lawsuit involving a Massachusetts public school district, and in 2024 the court declined to take certain challenges from Wisconsin and Maryland. Meanwhile, state actions elsewhere, including sweeping restrictions in Kansas, underscore how sharply contested school policies on gender identity have become across the United States.