Supreme Court Rules for Parents in Transgender Stay Appeal (1)

A divided US Supreme Court sided for the moment with parents in a dispute over a California policy limiting transgender student disclosure.

In an order on Monday, the justices partly vacated a stay issued by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of an injunction favoring parents who claim the policy, which restricts when they can be informed about gender identities without student consent, violates their due process and free exercise rights.

Court conservatives concluded that the stay in full “wasn’t justified” under its precedents, and that parents who seek religious exemptions from the state school policy are likely to succeed on the merits.

“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 in the per curiam decision.

Parents claiming a due process violation are also likely to succeed, the court said. Teachers objected to the policy as well, but their claims in the emergency application were denied.

Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh noted their concurrence with the outcome, while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would’ve granted the application in full. Justice Sonia Sotomayor would’ve denied the application in full.

Kagan Disagrees

Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissent, joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson, decrying the court’s action so early in the litigation and without much briefing or oral argument.

“The court does all this even though the application of existing law to the case raises tricky questions, and so cries out for reflection and explanation. The court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly,” she wrote.

The emergency petition was one of several asking justices to review policies guiding teachers to use the name and pronouns of a student’s choice without informing their parents. The court had rejected three in the past two years.

The high court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor last year held that a Maryland school district’s policy disallowing opt outs for LGBTQ+ children’s books on religious grounds violated parents’ free exercise rights.

Judge Roger T. Benitez of the US District Court for the Southern District of California in December blocked the California policy. But the Ninth Circuit allowed it to take effect in finding, among other things, that the injunction likely swept too broadly and that Mahmoud apparently didn’t apply.

The parents then sought expedited intervention by the Supreme Court while the litigation played out. The parents said the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Mahmoud was wrong and that California’s policy “unquestionably” interfered with their ability to direct their childrens’ religious upbringing.

The parents and teachers have been represented by the conservative Catholic law firm the Thomas More Society. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) has argued state law properly balances parental interests with student privacy rights.

The case is Mirabelli v. Bonta, U.S., No. 25A810.