In 2023, two California public school teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Nicholas Williams, sued their school district in federal district court to seek exemptions from district policies governing students’ gender identity. The teachers alleged that the policies required them to use students’ preferred names and pronouns and to withhold information from parents about a student’s gender transition at school, which they argued conflicted with their religious beliefs.
During the litigation, the school district asserted that California law required schools to follow these practices. The teachers then added state officials as defendants, and several parents of California public school students joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.
The parent plaintiffs included John and Jane Poe and John and Jane Doe, who alleged that the policies prevented them from learning about their children’s gender transition at school. The Poes alleged that their daughter began presenting as a boy and using a male name and pronouns at school during seventh grade. The Poes only discovered this after their child was hospitalized for a suicide attempt and a doctor informed them that the child had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school. At a new school during ninth grade, the Poes’ child again began identifying as a boy. Contrary to the parents’ instructions, teachers and school officials continued to use a male name and pronouns for their child, citing obligations under California state law.
The Does object to gender transitioning. However, since the fifth grade, their daughter has sometimes identified as a boy. When the child was in seventh grade, the Does confronted the school principal because they believed the school was using a male name and pronouns for their child without informing them. The principal explained that state law prohibited the school from sharing information about a student’s gender identity or transitioning with parents without the student’s consent. The Does believed that the risk of leaving their child at that school was too great, but sending her to a private school was financially and logistically infeasible. They transferred their child to another public school and placed them in therapy.
After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction. The injunction prevents schools from “misleading” parents about their children’s gender presentation at school and their social transitioning efforts. It also requires schools to follow parents’ directions regarding their children’s names and pronouns.
Defendants appealed, and the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court may not have conducted the rigorous analysis required for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and suggested that the injunction appeared overly broad. The Ninth Circuit also expressed doubts about the district court’s decision on the merits of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. The parents and teachers then applied to the United States Supreme Court to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay.
The Supreme Court concluded that the parent plaintiffs who sought religious exemptions were likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim. The Supreme Court explained that California’s policies substantially interfered with the right of parents to guide the religious development of their children, a principle recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). The Supreme Court also relied on its recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025), which held that failing to provide parents with an opportunity to opt out of having their children exposed to LGBTQ+ inclusive books placed a burden on parents’ religious rights. According to the Supreme Court, California’s nondisclosure policies imposed an even greater burden because they permitted schools to facilitate aspects of a child’s gender transition without parental knowledge or consent.
The Supreme Court stated that California’s policies would not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands, because the policies were not narrowly tailored. The Supreme Court opined that California’s interest in safety could be served by a policy that allows religious exemptions while precluding gender-identity disclosure to parents who would engage in abuse.
The Supreme Court also determined that the parents were likely to succeed on their due process claim. The Court explained that longstanding precedent recognizes parents’ fundamental rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The Court stated that this right includes parents’ right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health, and that gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health. Therefore, the Court argued that California’s policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
The Supreme Court further held that the denial of constitutional rights during the appellate process constitutes irreparable harm. The Court stated that the balance of equities favored the parents, because the injunction ensured parental participation in significant decisions affecting children while still allowing the State to protect children through existing child-abuse laws.
The Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit’s procedural concerns, concluding that the parent plaintiffs likely had standing and that the district court sufficiently addressed the requirements for class certification.
The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay with respect to the parent plaintiffs but left it in place with respect to the teacher plaintiffs.
Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) ___U.S.___ [___L.Ed.2d___].