U.S. Supreme Court Blocks California Transgender Student Nondisclosure Policy as Case Continues

On March 2, 2026, the United States Supreme Court blocked a California law that prohibited public school officials from informing parents of their students’ gender identity at school without the student’s consent. The policy applied even if parents expressly asked for information on their child’s gender identification. The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, stems from teachers and parents who alleged the policies, which were based on state law and guidance, violated their First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The decision means the California law is enjoined as the case continues in lower courts.

Two parents, John and Jane Poe, asserted that school officials did not inform them when their daughter began to present as a boy and used a male name and male pronouns. They were not aware of the student’s transition until the child attempted suicide in eighth grade, and a doctor informed the Poes about the student’s gender dysphoria and transition. Similarly, John and Jane Doe had a daughter who began to identify as a boy. While the student was in seventh grade, the Does confronted a principal about their belief the school was using a male name and pronouns without their knowledge. The Does transferred their child to another school.

Following the filing of a lawsuit in 2023, the California federal court granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiff parents. The injunction prevented schools from “misleading” parents about their children’s gender identity, as well as required schools to follow parent directions regarding names and pronouns. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, raising concerns about, among other issues, the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on a Sixth Circuit decision and that it “brushed aside” the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Mahmoud v. Taylor, 145 S. Ct. 2332 (2025). The parents and teachers filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking vacatur of the stay pending appeal.

In a majority opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay as legally unjustified. Citing Mahmoud, the Court found that the parents were likely to succeed on their constitutional Free Exercise Clause claim because the policies “substantially interfere” with the right of parents to guide the religion of their children, including raising children in accordance with their beliefs about sex and gender. Defendants argued the policies advanced a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. In response, the Court observed that parents are the primary protectors of their children’s best interests. The Court held that parents have authority with respect to the upbringing and education of their children, and the “right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health,” such as decisions related to gender dysphoria.

However, the Court noted in dicta that the “State’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.” Thus, even with the injunction, the state can “shield children from unfit parents by enforcing child-abuse laws and removing children from parental custody in appropriate cases.”