California Policy That Prohibited Disclosure to Parents of Student Gender Transitioning Found Likely to Violate Fundamental Parental Rights

Matthew M. Hoffman, Esq., (412) 594-3910, mhoffman@tuckerlaw.com

Mirabelli v. Bonta, et al., 607 U. S. ____ (2026) (The United States Supreme Court reinstated a trial court injunction suspending implementation of California school district policies precluding school employees from informing parents of their children’s gender presentation at school, concluding that the policies likely violated parental rights).

BACKGROUND

Parents challenged California state policies that prevented schools from telling them about their children’s efforts to engage in gender transitioning at school unless the children consent to parental notification. The parents also took issue with California’s requirement that schools use children’s preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents’ wishes.

Two of the parent plaintiffs, expressed religious objections to gender transitioning but were not told by their daughter’s school when she began to present as a boy and use a male name and male pronouns during her seventh-grade year. In parent-teacher meetings, no one told the parents about their daughter’s transitioning or referred to her using the male name and pronouns that were used at school. At the beginning of their daughter’s eighth-grade year, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Only then did her parents learn from a doctor that she had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school. At a new school in ninth grade, the student once again began identifying as a boy. Contrary to the parents’ instructions, teachers and school officials continued to use a male name and pronouns for their daughter, citing their obligations under the California state law.

Another female student sometimes also identified as a boy. When she was in seventh grade, her parents confronted the school principal about their daughter’s transitioning. They believed the school was using a male name and pronouns for their daughter behind their backs. The principal explained that state law prohibited the school from sharing information about a child’s transitioning with them without the child’s consent.

Several teachers joined the challenge objecting to their compelled participation in the implementation of the State’s policies.

The parents and teachers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California claiming that these policies violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction that prohibited schools from withholding information from parents and required adherence to parental directions on names and pronouns. The District Court also ordered state-created instructional materials to include notice of the rights protected by the injunction. On appeal by California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction pending its full review and disposition of the substance of the appeal. That temporary order subsequently was appealed to the United State Supreme Court.

DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay as to the parent plaintiffs, concluding that the parents seeking religious exemptions are likely to succeed on their Free Exercise and Due Process claims.

The Court concluded that California’s policies require strict scrutiny insofar as they likely substantially interfere with the right of parents to guide the religious development of their children. The Court opined that the policy of unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition intruded upon the parents’ free exercise of religion rights and would not be justifiable by a compelling interest of the state. The Court explained that the state’s interest in safety of the child could be served by a policy that allows religious exemptions while precluding gender-identity disclosure to parents who likely would engage in abuse.

The court also concluded that the parents also likely would prevail on their due process claims. Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to “the upbringing and education of children.”  The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health. The Court explained thatgender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours. Thus, the Corut opined that these policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

PRACTICAL ADVICE

The Supreme Court’s decision is consistent with the recent trajectory of case law that has increasingly recognized fundamental parental rights as predominate when in tension with school district policies. Mirabelli follows the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, 145 S. Ct. 2332 (2025), where the Court held that a school district’s introduction of LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks and its policy of not permitting opt-outs from such instruction, placed an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion. These cases provide significant leverage to legal challenges to school district policies that interfere with fundamental parenting decisions.

To be clear, the Supreme Court ruling in Mirabelli was not a final decision on the merits. Its order only reinstated the injunction pending further review of the substance of the appeal by the Ninth Circuit. Nonetheless, the Court’s opinion strongly signaled that the parents’ claims were well founded.

For questions about how this decision may impact your school district’s policies and practices, please contact Matthew Hoffman at (412) 594-3910 or mhoffman@tuckerlaw.com.