Justices Partly Toss Stay in Transgender Disclosure Dispute (1)

A divided US Supreme Court sided for now with parents challenging 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.

The court’s conservative members concluded that the stay in full “wasn’t justified” under its precedents, and that parents who seek religious exemptions from the state 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.

Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, concurred in 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.

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 application were denied.

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 has rejected three in the past two years.

The ruling comes on the heels of the high court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor last year, which 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 granted partial summary judgment and blocked the California policy in December. 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 emergency 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.