Mirabelli v. Bonta
The Supreme Court reinstated a court order blocking California from concealing students' gender transitions from their parents at school, ruling that objecting parents are likely to win their constitutional claims and cannot wait years for a final answer while their rights are being overridden.
The decision restores, at least for now, parents' ability to know about and direct their children's gender-related decisions at school — a significant move in a national debate over how public schools should handle transgender students' identities when parents object.
How it got here: A federal district court permanently enjoined California's school gender-identity policies; the Ninth Circuit stayed that injunction pending appeal; parents and teachers applied to the Supreme Court to vacate the stay.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Two sets of California parents with religious and personal objections to gender transitioning were kept in the dark by their children's schools about their daughters' gender transitions — in one case, a mother and father learned only after their daughter attempted suicide and was hospitalized. California's policies, backed by state guidance, required schools to keep students' gender identity confidential from parents unless the student consented to disclosure, and directed teachers to use students' preferred names and pronouns regardless of parental instructions. Teachers also objected to being compelled to carry out these policies.
The question before the Court
Do California school policies that hide children's gender transitioning from parents — and require teachers to use preferred names and pronouns regardless of parental wishes — violate parents' religious freedom and their constitutional right to participate in their children's upbringing?
The Court's answer
Yes — as to the parent plaintiffs, the Court reinstated the district court's permanent injunction blocking California's nondisclosure policies while the appeal continues. Parents with religious objections are likely to win their Free Exercise Clause claim: California's policies substantially interfere with their religious duty to guide their children's upbringing, triggering the most demanding constitutional test (called "strict scrutiny"), which the State's blanket nondisclosure approach is unlikely to survive because a narrower rule — one that still shields children from abusive parents — could serve the same interests.
All objecting parents, not just those with religious objections, are also likely to win their due process claim. Long-established Supreme Court precedent recognizes parents as having primary authority over their children's upbringing and mental health decisions, and California's policy of concealing symptoms of gender dysphoria from parents directly cuts them out of those decisions. Denying parents their likely-valid rights during years of appeals constitutes irreparable harm. The application was denied as to the teacher plaintiffs, whose claims continue in the lower courts.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
For parents at California public schools who object to gender-transition policies, schools must now notify them of their children's gender transitioning and follow their directions on names and pronouns while the case proceeds. One family in the case only learned of their daughter's transition after she attempted suicide — a fact the Court cited in finding that exclusion from these decisions causes serious, irreparable harm.
What changes now
The district court's permanent injunction — requiring California public schools to inform objecting parents about their children's gender transitioning at school and to follow parental directions on names and pronouns — is back in effect for parent plaintiffs while the Ninth Circuit conducts its full appeal. Teacher plaintiffs did not receive emergency relief and their claims continue in the lower courts. The case is not finally resolved; lower courts must still rule on the merits.
What this does not decide
The Court did not finally decide that California's policies are unconstitutional — it said only that parents are likely to win, which is a preliminary finding. The ruling provides no relief to teacher plaintiffs. It also does not resolve how courts should treat similar policies in other states. The word "likely" throughout the opinion signals that the ultimate question remains open for the lower courts.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Separate writings (3). Justice Barrett (author of a concurrence), joined by Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh.
Dissent (2). Justice Kagan (author), joined by Justice Jackson.
Concurrence — Justice Barrett
Justice Barrett wrote separately to defend the Court's use of substantive due process — the doctrine that the Constitution protects certain rights not explicitly written in its text — for parental rights. She explained that the Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs, which overruled Roe v. Wade, did not undermine parental-rights precedents because those precedents have the deep historical roots that Dobbs said Roe lacked. She also defended the Court's choice to publish a written explanation of its reasoning rather than issuing a silent one-line order, arguing transparency outweighs the risk of being misread as a final ruling.
Dissent — Justice Kagan
Justice Kagan argued the Court is misusing its emergency docket to resolve novel, difficult constitutional questions without adequate briefing, oral argument, or internal deliberation. She would have waited for the Ninth Circuit's en banc process to finish, or granted review in a similar pending case (Foote v. Ludlow School Committee) to address these issues through the Court's full merits procedures. She also flagged a tension between several majority members' longstanding criticism of substantive due process doctrine and their willingness to invoke it here to protect parental rights. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the standard four-factor test for emergency relief — asking how likely the applicants are to win the case, whether they will suffer serious harm without relief, whether the other side will suffer serious harm if relief is granted, and where the public interest lies.
- On likelihood of success for the religious-freedom claim: California's policies substantially interfere with parents' sincere religious obligation to guide their children's development, which under the Court's recent Mahmoud v. Taylor decision (from 2025) triggers 'strict scrutiny' — the most demanding constitutional standard, requiring the government to show both a very strong justification and a carefully tailored policy. The Court found that blocking gender-transition information from parents is a greater intrusion than the LGBTQ storybooks it already found sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.
- California's policies are unlikely to survive strict scrutiny: the State's interest in student safety and privacy could be protected by a narrower rule that allows parental notification except when a child faces a genuine risk of abuse — meaning the current all-or-nothing nondisclosure approach is not narrowly enough tailored to the government's stated goals.
- On likelihood of success for the due process claim: decades of Supreme Court precedent (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska, Parham v. J.R.) recognize parents as the primary decision-makers for their children's upbringing and mental health. California's policy of concealing a child's gender dysphoria symptoms directly excludes parents from decisions about a condition with important mental-health consequences, likely crossing the constitutional line.
- On irreparable harm and the balance of equities: being excluded from constitutional rights for the duration of a potentially years-long appeal itself counts as irreparable harm. The Court found the equities favor parents because the injunction promotes child safety by ensuring fit parents participate in consequential decisions, while still allowing California to protect children from abusive parents through existing child-protective-services laws.
- The Ninth Circuit's procedural objections did not change the analysis: the injunction covers only parents who actually object to the policies, not all California parents, so Article III standing concerns were overstated; and the district court adequately addressed the requirements for certifying a class action before doing so.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Mahmoud v. Taylor (606 U.S. 522 (2025))
The Court corrects the Ninth Circuit's characterization of Mahmoud as narrow and applies it broadly to parental free exercise claims about gender policies.
Reaffirms Parham v. J. R. (442 U.S. 584 (1979))
Reaffirmed as controlling authority for the right of parents to participate in decisions about their children's mental health care.