社区黑料

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory Monday to those who argue that schools should inform parents if their child changes their gender identity, even without the student鈥檚 consent.

In the California case, , the conservative justices reinstated a December district court decision that temporarily blocked schools from keeping such information private or from changing names and pronouns when parents say it violates their religious beliefs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had granted Attorney General Rob Bonta鈥檚 request for an emergency stay while the district court hears the case, and Monday鈥檚 order overruled that stay.

The Supreme Court relied on last year鈥檚 ruling in in which the justices sided with religious parents who wanted to opt their elementary school children out of lessons related to LGBTQ-themed storybooks. 

鈥淐alifornia鈥檚 policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands,鈥� the order said, adding that 鈥減arents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed鈥� at the district court level. 

Referencing one of the families in the case, they wrote: 鈥淎t the beginning of their daughter鈥檚 eighth-grade year, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Only then did her parents learn from a doctor that she had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school.鈥�

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised the decision. 鈥淗uge win for parental rights in education!鈥� she on X. The administration agrees with many conservative groups that schools have kept parents in the dark about their children鈥檚 social transition and should proactively notify them when their child asks to use different pronouns or bathrooms. 

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez鈥檚 temporary injunction said that California schools can鈥檛 mislead parents about their children鈥檚 gender identity and must prominently display wording that says parents 鈥渉ave a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.鈥� 

Bonta has argued that the state鈥檚 policies, including a 2024 law barring districts from forcing teachers to 鈥渙ut鈥� students, don鈥檛 prevent schools from sharing information with parents. But he said Benitez鈥檚 blanket ruling 鈥� and the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision to keep it in place 鈥� puts students at risk if they鈥檙e not ready to disclose their gender identity. Advocates for LGBTQ students agree.

鈥淚n its rush to expand religious influence in public schools, the Supreme Court prioritized religious exemptions over children鈥檚 success and well-being and trampled on the rights and futures of transgender students without considering the full facts of the case,鈥� Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women鈥檚 Law Center, said in . 

鈥楾he court is impatient鈥�

That鈥檚 the same point that Justice Elena Kagan, one of the three liberals on the court, made in her dissent, which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. Kagan agreed that 鈥減arents have rights鈥� when it comes to their children鈥檚 鈥渓ife choices,鈥� but that the court should wait until the case plays out before the Ninth Circuit. 

鈥淭he court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly,鈥� she wrote. 

If the conservatives wanted to consider the 鈥渢horny legal issues鈥� involved, she added, they should agree to hear a Massachusetts case, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, that makes similar arguments for parental rights.

鈥淏y recent count, almost 40 cases raising due process and/or free exercise objections to similar school policies are currently in the judicial system,鈥� she wrote. 鈥淏y granting certiorari on one (or more) of those cases, the court could ensure that the issues raised by such policies receive the careful, disciplined consideration they merit.鈥�

The court has repeatedly delayed its decision whether to grant or deny a hearing in the Foote case and another one from . Both are scheduled for consideration again this Friday.

In a separate statement concurring with the majority, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined, Justice Amy Coney Barrett disagreed that the court was hasty in overruling the Ninth Circuit. 

鈥淯nder California鈥檚 policy, parents will be excluded 鈥� perhaps for years 鈥� from participating in consequential decisions about their child鈥檚 mental health and wellbeing,鈥� she wrote. 

Teachers from the Escondido Union School District, near San Diego, originally filed the case in 2023, saying the state鈥檚 guidance violates their Christian faith. Parents later joined the case. Without giving a reason, the court denied the teachers鈥� request to set aside the Ninth Circuit鈥檚 stay, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have sided with the teachers as well. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she would have denied the relief for all of the plaintiffs.

David Mishook, an attorney with F3 Law, which represents California school districts, said that given the Supreme Court鈥檚 鈥渟trong language,鈥� he wouldn鈥檛 be surprised if Bonta drops any challenge to Judge Benitez鈥檚 injunction.

While neither Benitez nor the Supreme Court come right out and say that teachers must proactively disclose a child鈥檚 gender identity to parents, the order 鈥渟uggests that teachers, and by extension their employers, now stand at great risk if they do not discuss gender expression with parents.鈥�

The court鈥檚 ruling follows a late January decision in which the Education Department that California鈥檚 policies violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which gives parents the right to inspect their children鈥檚 educational records. She pointed to instances in which schools used trans students鈥� preferred names and pronouns in school databases, but parents would see legal names when they logged in. 

The state risks losing over $5 billion in federal funds if it doesn鈥檛 comply with the department鈥檚 demands, including allowing districts to pass parental notification policies.

Bonta promptly the department, saying the penalty would cause 鈥渋mminent and irreparable injury to California.鈥� 

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 社区黑料鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.