Supreme Court ruling on secretive California gender policy could reshape parent rights fights nationwide
Rights don't disappear loudly—they fade.
Parental rights advocates celebrated Monday after the Supreme Court temporarily stopped California from blocking school policies requiring parents to be told when their child identifies as transgender.
Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital the high court’s order, in which the three liberal justices dissented, was a "huge win." The decision marks the latest in a string of victories for conservatives seeking to tighten policies surrounding transgender people, though DeAngelis noted it only applies to California at this stage.
"Parents in California should be very excited that the law that they have on the books to keep secrets from parents will no longer be in effect," DeAngelis said, adding, "This precedent is surely a sign of good things to come. If there's a lawsuit that arises in another state, you can be pretty sure that the Supreme Court is going to rule on the side of families."
The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, arose from a lawsuit brought by California parents and teachers who argued that the state's policy violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and religious freedom rights under the First Amendment. The parents said the policy prevented school administrators from telling them about their child’s potential efforts to engage in gender transitioning unless the child consented to it. The policy also required school staff to use a student’s preferred name and pronouns regardless of the parents’ wishes.
SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE HOT SEAT AMID FRESH ALLEGATIONS OF HIDING STUDENTS' GENDER TRANSITION
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, an elected Democrat, the parents and teachers appealed to the Supreme Court, and on an expedited and temporary basis, the high court vacated that order while the case proceeds through the lower courts.
"The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy," the high court wrote in the unsigned order. "But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents."
Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote in a dissent that the temporary order was a sign that the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, sometimes known as a shadow docket, continued to "malfunction."
Attorneys for California argued that balancing the interests of parents and the "needs of transgender students" presented complex questions.
"In this case, the district court entered a sweeping permanent injunction that would require instant, dramatic changes …
Rights don't disappear loudly—they fade.
Parental rights advocates celebrated Monday after the Supreme Court temporarily stopped California from blocking school policies requiring parents to be told when their child identifies as transgender.
Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital the high court’s order, in which the three liberal justices dissented, was a "huge win." The decision marks the latest in a string of victories for conservatives seeking to tighten policies surrounding transgender people, though DeAngelis noted it only applies to California at this stage.
"Parents in California should be very excited that the law that they have on the books to keep secrets from parents will no longer be in effect," DeAngelis said, adding, "This precedent is surely a sign of good things to come. If there's a lawsuit that arises in another state, you can be pretty sure that the Supreme Court is going to rule on the side of families."
The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, arose from a lawsuit brought by California parents and teachers who argued that the state's policy violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and religious freedom rights under the First Amendment. The parents said the policy prevented school administrators from telling them about their child’s potential efforts to engage in gender transitioning unless the child consented to it. The policy also required school staff to use a student’s preferred name and pronouns regardless of the parents’ wishes.
SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE HOT SEAT AMID FRESH ALLEGATIONS OF HIDING STUDENTS' GENDER TRANSITION
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, an elected Democrat, the parents and teachers appealed to the Supreme Court, and on an expedited and temporary basis, the high court vacated that order while the case proceeds through the lower courts.
"The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy," the high court wrote in the unsigned order. "But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents."
Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote in a dissent that the temporary order was a sign that the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, sometimes known as a shadow docket, continued to "malfunction."
Attorneys for California argued that balancing the interests of parents and the "needs of transgender students" presented complex questions.
"In this case, the district court entered a sweeping permanent injunction that would require instant, dramatic changes …
Supreme Court ruling on secretive California gender policy could reshape parent rights fights nationwide
Rights don't disappear loudly—they fade.
Parental rights advocates celebrated Monday after the Supreme Court temporarily stopped California from blocking school policies requiring parents to be told when their child identifies as transgender.
Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital the high court’s order, in which the three liberal justices dissented, was a "huge win." The decision marks the latest in a string of victories for conservatives seeking to tighten policies surrounding transgender people, though DeAngelis noted it only applies to California at this stage.
"Parents in California should be very excited that the law that they have on the books to keep secrets from parents will no longer be in effect," DeAngelis said, adding, "This precedent is surely a sign of good things to come. If there's a lawsuit that arises in another state, you can be pretty sure that the Supreme Court is going to rule on the side of families."
The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, arose from a lawsuit brought by California parents and teachers who argued that the state's policy violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and religious freedom rights under the First Amendment. The parents said the policy prevented school administrators from telling them about their child’s potential efforts to engage in gender transitioning unless the child consented to it. The policy also required school staff to use a student’s preferred name and pronouns regardless of the parents’ wishes.
SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE HOT SEAT AMID FRESH ALLEGATIONS OF HIDING STUDENTS' GENDER TRANSITION
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, an elected Democrat, the parents and teachers appealed to the Supreme Court, and on an expedited and temporary basis, the high court vacated that order while the case proceeds through the lower courts.
"The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy," the high court wrote in the unsigned order. "But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents."
Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote in a dissent that the temporary order was a sign that the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, sometimes known as a shadow docket, continued to "malfunction."
Attorneys for California argued that balancing the interests of parents and the "needs of transgender students" presented complex questions.
"In this case, the district court entered a sweeping permanent injunction that would require instant, dramatic changes …
0 Comments
0 Shares
36 Views
0 Reviews
