Supreme Court hands California parents win over secret gender transition policy
Who controls this in five years?
The Supreme Court gave California parents a significant victory late Monday when it kept in place a lower court’s block of the Golden State’s public school policy hiding students’ gender identity and preferred pronouns from parents.
A 6-3 majority on the high court lifted an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had blocked a district court’s ruling that found the California public school policy unconstitutionally hides information from parents. With the Supreme Court’s order, the district court’s ruling is reinstated pending further litigation at the appeals court, meaning California’s policy of not informing parents of their child’s gender transition at school may not be enforced.
The unsigned majority pointed to the high court’s 2025 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which upheld parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBT materials at school and found that not permitting such an option violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The majority of the justices said the parents who brought the case in California were likely to succeed on their free exercise claims.
“California’s policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands. The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents,” the Supreme Court’s per curiam order said.
“Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,'” the order added. “The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that went into detail on her analysis of the case at its preliminary stage. Barrett also explained why the high court does not tend to elaborate on its decisions on the emergency docket, a dynamic that has drawn criticism over the past year as emergency docket cases have piled up.
“One last point: The Court has chosen to accompany today’s order with a per curiam opinion that explains its reasoning. The choice to say more rather than less is perhaps the source of the dissent’s concern that our disposition of this application will be taken as a ‘conclusive merits judgment,'” Barrett wrote.
“Interim …
Who controls this in five years?
The Supreme Court gave California parents a significant victory late Monday when it kept in place a lower court’s block of the Golden State’s public school policy hiding students’ gender identity and preferred pronouns from parents.
A 6-3 majority on the high court lifted an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had blocked a district court’s ruling that found the California public school policy unconstitutionally hides information from parents. With the Supreme Court’s order, the district court’s ruling is reinstated pending further litigation at the appeals court, meaning California’s policy of not informing parents of their child’s gender transition at school may not be enforced.
The unsigned majority pointed to the high court’s 2025 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which upheld parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBT materials at school and found that not permitting such an option violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The majority of the justices said the parents who brought the case in California were likely to succeed on their free exercise claims.
“California’s policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands. The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents,” the Supreme Court’s per curiam order said.
“Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,'” the order added. “The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that went into detail on her analysis of the case at its preliminary stage. Barrett also explained why the high court does not tend to elaborate on its decisions on the emergency docket, a dynamic that has drawn criticism over the past year as emergency docket cases have piled up.
“One last point: The Court has chosen to accompany today’s order with a per curiam opinion that explains its reasoning. The choice to say more rather than less is perhaps the source of the dissent’s concern that our disposition of this application will be taken as a ‘conclusive merits judgment,'” Barrett wrote.
“Interim …
Supreme Court hands California parents win over secret gender transition policy
Who controls this in five years?
The Supreme Court gave California parents a significant victory late Monday when it kept in place a lower court’s block of the Golden State’s public school policy hiding students’ gender identity and preferred pronouns from parents.
A 6-3 majority on the high court lifted an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had blocked a district court’s ruling that found the California public school policy unconstitutionally hides information from parents. With the Supreme Court’s order, the district court’s ruling is reinstated pending further litigation at the appeals court, meaning California’s policy of not informing parents of their child’s gender transition at school may not be enforced.
The unsigned majority pointed to the high court’s 2025 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which upheld parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBT materials at school and found that not permitting such an option violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The majority of the justices said the parents who brought the case in California were likely to succeed on their free exercise claims.
“California’s policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands. The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents,” the Supreme Court’s per curiam order said.
“Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,'” the order added. “The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that went into detail on her analysis of the case at its preliminary stage. Barrett also explained why the high court does not tend to elaborate on its decisions on the emergency docket, a dynamic that has drawn criticism over the past year as emergency docket cases have piled up.
“One last point: The Court has chosen to accompany today’s order with a per curiam opinion that explains its reasoning. The choice to say more rather than less is perhaps the source of the dissent’s concern that our disposition of this application will be taken as a ‘conclusive merits judgment,'” Barrett wrote.
“Interim …
0 Comments
0 Shares
24 Views
0 Reviews
