U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on California’s Transgender Student Policy

The United States Supreme Court issued a decision yesterday, in Mirabelli v. Bonta, that expands parental rights regarding gender identity transition by their child. The lawsuit involves allegations that California, through its unique law, required public schools to only permit disclosure of a student’s gender transitioning status to the student’s parents if the student consented. A set of parents were not told about their child’s gender transitioning at school and filed this suit asserting religious objections to the school’s actions supporting their child’s gender transitioning. The child attempted suicide, and the doctors identified the child as having gender dysphoria after the child transitioned without the parents’ knowledge.

The District Court ruled in favor of those challenging California law and ordered the school not to “‘mislead[]’ parents about their children’s gender presentation at school and their social transitioning efforts” and it also “require[d] the schools to follow parents’ directives regarding their children’s names and pronouns.” That order was appealed, and the Ninth Circuit halted the injunction citing procedural matters, as well as noting disagreement with the merits of the decision.

The Plaintiffs then appealed the stay of the injunction to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the parents were likely to succeed on their constitutional Free Exercise claim, noting that the California policy was subject to strict scrutiny because it “substantially interfere[d] with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.’” The Supreme Court went on to find that California’s argument of a compelling interest in student safety and privacy failed because the school’s policies “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” Importantly, the Supreme Court recognized an interest in student safety, but offered that California’s interest in safety could be served with a policy precluding gender-identity disclosure only to parents who would engage in child abuse.

The Supreme Court also found in favor of the parents on due process grounds—that parents, not the state, have “primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’” And, resultantly, there was a “right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health” such that the “policies likely violate[d] parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

Finding the California law denied parents of their constitutional rights, the Supreme Court found that fit parents must be guaranteed a role in “some of the most consequential decisions in their children’s lives.”

While this is a limited order vacating a stay in the Ninth Circuit, the language of the decision indicates that policies that keep parents from learning of their child’s gender-identity transition at school and participating in decisions about a gender transition may violate the parents’ Free Exercise and due process rights, although the Court provided for an allowance for a carve out when knowledge would lead to parental abuse of the student. 

If you would like to discuss the implications of this Order for your school or its policies, please contact any Franczek attorney.