The Supreme Court on Monday blocked California from enforcing a policy that restricted schools from informing parents if their child expresses gender nonconformity or attempts to change their name or pronouns.
The ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a case on the court’s emergency, or “shadow,” docket, centered on children’s expressions of gender in schools. In an unsigned opinion, the court reinstated a lower court’s ruling that would have schools inform parents about their child’s gender expression.
However, the opinion was not unanimous, as is the norm for unsigned opinions: Instead, it appeared split 6-3 along ideological lines, with all three liberal justices dissenting.
“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 opinion read. The court also cited its own previous decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which allowed parents to opt their children out of elementary school curricula that include books with LGBTQ+ themes.
The case challenged a 2024 California law that states public school employees do not have to disclose any information about a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or expression to anyone without the student’s consent. The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, was the first in the nation to ban forced outing policies in schools, in contrast to a slate of anti-trans laws in other states that require schools to inform parents about a child’s gender identity.
A group of parents, however, sued, claiming that California’s law violates the Constitution and argued that public school employees should be required to inform them about their own children’s changes in gender identity.
The ruling noted specifically that while it only granted the reinstatement on behalf of parents, the lawsuit also claimed the policy violated the free speech rights of teachers by prohibiting them from informing parents.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have granted it in full for all parties, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied it in full. Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Kagan’s dissent strongly criticized the court’s willingness to rule on the issue via the shadow docket — particularly calling out issues of briefing, the lack of oral argument and the quick timeframe.
“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,” she wrote. “The Court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly.”
The court however, may take up the issue again. The justices have been asked to hear arguments in a near-identical case called Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, though they have not yet agreed to take the case.
Kagan also called out the court for ruling via the “shortcut” of the emergency docket, rather than taking up the case on the merits via Foote.
“If nothing else, this Court owes it to a sovereign State to avoid throwing over its policies in a slapdash way, if the Court can provide normal procedures. And throwing over a State’s policy is what the Court does today,” she wrote.
The ruling comes less than a year after the court handed conservatives a victory on education and LGBTQ issues in last year’s Mahmoud. The decision, handed down in June of 2025, put even further pressure on schools to adhere to a conservative and anti-LGBTQ agenda at a time when schools have been the focus of right-wing culture wars.
Source link
#Supreme #Court #Blocks #California #Policy #Prohibited #Outing #Trans #Kids
