The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked California’s policies that bar school employees from informing parents that their child is undergoing gender transition at school.
The court’s March 2 ruling temporarily reinstated a lower court decision, which ruled that California schools cannot mislead parents about their child’s gender expression and must use the students’ names and pronouns given by the parents.
“We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim,” the court’s unsigned order stated.
The court also wrote that the policies violate some parents’ religious beliefs.
“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,” the court said. “California’s policies violate those beliefs.”
The policies were challenged in 2024 by a group of Christian teachers and parents who filed suit against a school district and sought relief from a gender and pronoun policy from the district. Parents whose children were socially transitioned at school joined the teachers in their suit.
After a district court ruled in the parents’ favor, the state of California appealed, leading to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit temporarily blocking the lower court ruling.
The Supreme Court this week favored the parents, stating that they were likely to win because of their claim that the policies violate their free exercise of religion and the constitutional right to lead the education and upbringing of children. Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that the ruling is “preliminary” and grants interim relief. The case will return to the lower courts.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Katani Brown Jackson, dissented in the decision, with Kagan accusing conservative justices of “impatience” in not granting review next fall in order to decide the case in full.
According to SCOTUSblog.com, Barrett pushed back on Kagan, arguing that granting temporary relief does not reflect impatience but rather “reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents” who otherwise could be excluded “perhaps for years—from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing.”
Two plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit oppose gender transitioning due to their religious beliefs. When their daughter attempted suicide in eighth grade, the parents discovered from a doctor that the school had begun socially transitioning the child at school and hid from the parents that the daughter began using male pronouns and a different name in seventh grade. Although the parents requested the school stop referring to her by a boy’s name, the teachers continued, citing school polices.
The parents are being represented by the Thomas More Society, which called the decision the “most significant parental rights ruling in a generation.”
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonn, Thomas More Society special counsel. “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.”
