Supreme Court Blocks California Law Protecting Transgender Students' Privacy

The Supreme Court blocked a California law that prohibited schools from informing parents if their child expresses gender nonconformity or attempts to change their name or pronouns without consent. The ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta, issued on the court’s emergency, or “shadow,” docket, centered on children’s expressions of gender in schools.

The unsigned opinion reinstated a lower court’s ruling that would have schools inform parents about their child’s gender expression. The decision was 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.

A group of parents 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 the appeal 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.

Justice Elena 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 may take up the issue again as it has 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.