The Supreme Court blocked a California policy that kept parents in the dark about a child’s gender transition, reaffirming that parents, not the state, are the “primary protectors of their children’s best interests.”
In a massive win for parental rights, the Supreme Court this past Monday evening granted the request of parents for emergency relief from a California law, AB 1955, that orders schools to hide a child’s gender confusion and social transition from their parents.
Pivotal in the Court’s move to block the law was its June 2025 opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which said that parents with religious objections have the right to opt their children out of LGBT and sexual lessons in the classroom.
In this case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the violation of religious parents’ First Amendment rights “is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.”
Strict scrutiny is the highest test for a law to pass, meaning that it must achieve a compelling government interest by the least restriction possible on a person’s constitutional rights. As such, the majority wrote,
“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.”
In this case, parents were broken into two classes: those objecting based on free exercise of religion claims and those with complaints of violations of due process rights safeguarding a parent’s right to direct the upbringing of their children.
The Court ruled that both classes of parents were likely to win a ruling on the merits of the case, explaining,
“Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’ The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.
Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.”
The ruling grants the request of parents to reinstate an injunction blocking the law that was originally put in place by a federal district court. The block was later lifted by a panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who ruled that a change in California’s policy allowing parents in some circumstances to be informed about their child’s gender confusion rendered the challenge moot.
But the plaintiff’s legal representation, the Thomas More Society, presented evidence showing that mandatory teachers’ training was still instructing staff to hide children’s gender transitions from parents.
The Supreme Court found that the real-world effects of California’s are highly destructive for children and the parent-child bond, noting that petitioners John and Jane Poe were not told by their daughter’s school when she began to present as a boy and use male pronouns at school when she was a seventh grader. In no parent-teacher meetings were the Poes ever informed about their daughter’s gender dysphoria or that their daughter was using a male name.
The Court’s opinion went on to describe what happened next:
“At the beginning of their daughter’s eighth-grade year, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Only then did her parents learn from a doctor that she had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school. Just months after being discharged, the Poes’ daughter was rehospitalized and held there involuntarily because she was at risk for self-harm.
At a new school in ninth grade, she once again began identifying as a boy. Contrary to the Poes’ instructions, teachers and school officials continued to use a male name and pronouns for their daughter, citing their obligations under California state law. The Poes have placed their daughter in therapy and obtained psychiatric care for her.”
According to the majority, the injunction does not block the California policies in their entirety for all parents with public school children, only parents who object to the policy or request a religious exemption.
Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society and partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP, called the ruling a “watershed moment for parental rights in America,” stating,
“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. The Court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country.”
The case originated in 2023 when two Christian teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, sued the K-8 Escondido Union School District, claiming that it violated their rights by banning them from discussing a child’s gender dysphoria with their parents.
The school district claimed it was only following state laws, so the lawsuit was then expanded to include state officials as defendants and parents as plaintiffs. The teachers have since been reinstated while the case is being litigated, and their attorneys say that the Supreme Court ruling on Monday vindicates their legal challenge.
“A watershed moment” is certainly correct. For years, schools have been hiding a child’s gender dysphoria from parents by using one name and pronouns with the parents and another at school, allowing students to use opposite-sex facilities, and placing students on plans to socially transition them without parental knowledge.
With this emergency ruling, the Court has finally given parents back their natural, constitutional rights.
Parents know their child better than anyone and as such they are best-positioned to speak to them about issues regarding sex and mental health, not teachers or guidance counselors. Since the dawn of time, everyone has understood that — until educators decided they could rear children “better” than their parents.
And it’s not just in California. It’s happening around the country, including in states like Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, and many more. Even if schools don’t have an official policy in place, they too often will turn a blind eye as woke teachers and administrators introduce children to very dark and destructive ideas.
But such policies don’t just violate parent’s rights — they invite real danger.
For example, take the experience of two Colorado couples after their daughters were asked by a teacher to join a “GSA Art Club.” What parent wouldn’t believe an after-school art club is a healthy, creative activity for middle school children? Unfortunately, it was a ruse, a fact that led the parents to file a lawsuit.
What the children and parents didn’t realize was that “GSA” stood for Genders and Sexualities Alliance. So instead of enjoying painting, sculpting, or printmaking, the students were taught all about transgender ideology.
Even worse, the teacher told the girls that their parents could not be trusted and that they should therefore keep secret everything they did and learned in the club.
In addition to telling kids about gender transitioning, the club leaders discussed suicide. Little wonder then that the couples’ daughters started feeling confused about their identity, got depressed, and began having suicidal thoughts; one of the girls even attempted suicide.
This is pure evil. Parents are not their child’s enemy, and schools have no right to fearmonger, deceive, or drive a wedge between the parent-child bond. And anyone who is hiding important information about a child’s mental health from parents is seeking to harm children, not help them.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is an important tool for parental rights, but parents who have children in public or even private school must wield it effectively.
It starts with recognizing that this is actually happening in many schools.
So, parents must let schools administrators know, in writing, that you object (on either religious or due process grounds, or both) to any effort to teach or tell your child about transgenderism or other sexual ideology and that you expect the school to immediately inform you about any gender confusion, mental health issue, or other concerning behavior exhibited by your child. And make sure every teacher your child comes in contact with understands this as well.
Then, talk to your children often and help them understand that any person who tells them to lie or to keep secrets from their parents is not to be trusted and that they should let you know about such requests immediately. Talk to them daily about what they are learning in school and encourage them to be open with you. And if you see something amiss, don’t be afraid to report it to civil rights authorities with the Department of Education or contact a constitutional law firm or a parental rights organization.
We live in a dark world now where groomers aren’t just lurking in dark alleys but are often standing at the front of a classroom. Parents need to take back control of their children’s health and well-being. God gave you that responsibility — and now the Supreme Court has once again reaffirmed that it is truly your God-given right.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
