The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reinstated a San Diego federal judge’s ruling that California teachers must be allowed to tell parents if their child may be transgender, siding with parents who said they have a constitutional right to know about possible changes to their child’s gender presenta tion at school. In a 6-3 decision, the nation’s highest court said it believes California’s policies let schools conceal changes to a student’s gender presentation from their parents, facilitate children’s gender transitions without parental consent and “substantially interfere” with parents’ rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children. “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,” a majority of the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The Supreme Court did not decide the merits of the case, Mirabelli v. Olson, first filed by two Escondido Union School District teachers and later joined by several parents. The case is still under review at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rather, the justices granted the plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay of the lower judge’s order pending appeal. The court vacated the stay only with respect to the plaintiffs who are parents. California does not require school employees to withhold information about student’s gender presentation from their parents. A 2024 state law known as AB 1955 only prohibits schools from requiring teachers and staff to notify parents about changes to their child’s gender presentation. But state officials have said in court and in training materials that schools shouldn’t notify parents without the student’s consent. The state Attorney General’s Office, which is leading the state’s defense of the case, said it was disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision. “We remain committed to ensuring a safe, welcoming school environment for all students while respecting the crucial role parents play in students’ lives,” the office said in an email. Meanwhile Paul Jonna, an attorney for the plaintiffs, called the decision was a “watershed moment for parental rights in America.” “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back,” Jonna said in a statement. The Supreme Court in its decision Monday sided with the plaintiffs in the San Diego case, which began more than two years ago. The initial plaintiffs, two now-former Escondido teachers, sued the state over what was then a district policy prohibiting teachers and staff from notifying parents about changes to their child’s gender presentation without the student’s consent. That policy was modeled after state guidance that the state has since withdrawn. But the state’s lawyers have continued to argue in the case that schools should protect transgender students’ privacy and not disclose any changes without their consent, saying it could violate their safety by forcibly outing them to their parents. In December, District Judge Roger Benitez ruled in favor of the Mirabelli plaintiffs, who now also include several parents who oppose such school policies. Benitez issued a court order prohibiting California school employees from “misleading” parents about their child’s gender status, such as by using different pronouns or names with a parent than the student uses at school. His ruling also prohibited employees from using pronouns or names that differ from the student’s legal ones if the parents object. The state promptly appealed Benitez’ decision, and in early January, the Ninth Circuit granted the state’s request to stay his ruling pending that appeal. Part of what’s at issue is whether a Supreme Court decision handed down last year, in the case Mahmoud v. Taylor, also applies to Mirabelli. In the Mahmoud case, Maryland parents sued for the right to opt their children out of instruction that included storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes, saying that not being allowed to opt them out violated their free exercise and parental rights. The Ninth Circuit ruled in its decision granting the stay that the standard set by Mahmoud doesn’t apply to the Mirabelli case because Mahmoud was narrowly focused on curriculum requirements. It said that the Mahmoud ruling doesn’t require an opt-out for general school policies that aren’t about instructional content. The Ninth Circuit also ruled that staying Benitez’ order will not cause any significant harm because schoolteachers and staff are already allowed to notify parents about changes to their students’ gender presentation if they wish. Current state laws and state education department policies do not prohibit schools from notifying parents. The Supreme Court lifted the stay based in part on its assessment of how likely it believes the parent plaintiffs are to succeed on the merits of their case. “These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children,” its ruling said. Contrary to the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court majority found that Mahmoud does apply to Mirabelli. It said it considers California’s policies to be an even greater intrusion on parents’ exercise rights than the introduction of LGBTQ+ storybooks in schools it analyzed in the Mahmoud case, and that it doesn’t believe California’s policies are likely to survive the strict scrutiny standard it set in that case. In a written dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that it was premature for the court to weigh in and that the majority’s opinion presents “thorny legal issues.” She took issue with the majority’s invocation of free exercise rights, noting that not all parents are seeking relief on the basis of their religion, and with the trial judge’s ruling that parents have a right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to know about their children’s gender. “The due process clause, needless to say, does not expressly grant parental rights of any kind,” Kagan wrote. “The relevant text bars a state only from depriving a person of ‘liberty’ ‘without due process of law.’” ...read more read less