March 19, 2026
What does the recent SCOTUS ruling that bans schools from hiding gender ‘transitions’ from parents really mean?
On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ground-breaking 6-3 interim emergency ruling, not a final decision, in the parental rights’ case Mirabelli v. Bonta. This case is challenging California law and school policies that bar teachers from informing parents of changes in their child’s gender identity, sexual orientation, or gender expression.
This case was brought to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals by two teachers in the Escondido Union School District. A minor girl had been “transitioning” to a boy for over a year at the school and the parents had no idea. The parents did not learn about what the school was allowing or their policy until their daughter tried to commit suicide. “California built a gender secrecy regime that forced teachers to deceive parents about their own children. The Supreme Court put a stop to that,” said Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society.
A lower court had placed a permanent injunction on the California law, but the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction and allowed California schools to continue following the existing law which kept gender transitioning hidden from parents. The groundbreaking SCOTUS ruling overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and reinstated the permanent hold on California. In exceptionally strong language the court vindicated parental rights to know what is happening with their own children in school.
The Mirabelli v. Bonta ruling is being widely touted as the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation. However, it is a limited procedural ruling, and therefore the injunction against the California law applies in this case only to families in the state of California.
But the strong message to every state and school district in the country is that secret gender transition policies in schools likely violate parents’ constitutional rights.
What did the Mirabelli v. Bonta SCOTUS ruling say?
The Ninth Circuit had ruled that the Escondido Union School District could continue its “non-disclosure” gender policy. The school required teachers and staff to use the preferred pronouns of students who wanted to “transition”, and the school was not required to inform the parents. They were actually required to keep parents in the dark. Gender activists refer to this as “no forced outing.”
The SCOTUS ruling kicked it back to the Ninth Circuit and has given California parents a temporary reprieve while the case is litigated. This means the school cannot continue withholding from parents any gender transition actions by their child until the appeal is adjudicated. Already, the California School Boards Association has crafted new guidance instructing districts how train staff on the change and how they need to comply with the SCOTUS ruling. Yet, to no one’s surprise, “just four days after that decision, California filed an emergency motion asking the Ninth Circuit—the same court the Supreme Court had just reversed—to carve out a new, standardless ’abuse exception’” to the injunction.”
In other words, the state of California remains committed to its gender secrecy policy and is trying to do an end run around SCOTUS!
But the SCOTUS decision has far-reaching implications. The Supreme Court cited the First and Fourteenth Amendments and said the California policy likely violated parental rights under both. That is good news and as Sarah Parshall Perry of Defending Education said, it’s a good “smoke signal” from SCOTUS. But, practically, it’s nothing more than that right now.
What does it mean for other states?
Many states, including many Minnesota school districts, have policies that require schools to ‘hide’ or fail to ‘inform’ parents that their children are “transitioning” at school. Those policies require schools and teachers to inform parents about their child’s gender “transitioning” only if the parents explicitly request such information. It’s essentially an “if not asked, we don’t tell” policy. Surprisingly, that policy is one of the least onerous. The Minnesota School Board Association has a model policy but it is currently up to each individual school district to choose to follow it.
Child Protection League is working with the Center for American Liberty, a pro bono law firm founded by Harmeet Dhillon, the current Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. DOJ. CPL is seeking litigants to challenge school gender policies that secretly transition children at school without parental knowledge.
If you or someone you know has experienced this, please contact us at contact@cplaction.com. Your information will be handled confidentially.
Links for further information:
https://mnmsba.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/PolicyServicesNewsletter-July2024.pdf
https://mnmsba.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Accommodating-Transgender-Students-Friday-WS.pdf
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1741787056/lfallsk12mnus/djrcnq9wdyrz4fjvbvfe/522TitleIX.pdf