WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday barred California from enforcing state rules that restrict when schools can notify parents about students who come out as transgender and requires teachers to use children’s preferred pronouns.
The court, on a 6-3 vote on ideological lines, allowed a federal judge’s ruling in favor of parents who oppose the policy on religious grounds to go into effect. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had put the judge’s decision on hold pending further litigation.
The court’s ruling focused on the parents’ claim that their rights under the free exercise clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated. The court also said they have valid parental rights claims under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The court did not grant a similar request made by teachers who object to the policy.
“We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim,” the court said in an unsigned opinion.
“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 added.
As for the parental rights claim, the court said that longstanding precedent says parents have primary responsibility over how to raise their children.
“The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health,” the court said.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Kagan took issue with the court embracing the parental rights claim, saying it was at odds with the court’s 2022 ruling that overturned the right to abortion.
The 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion had relied upon a similar 14th Amendment substantive due process claim, which is based on the theory that the Constitution protects fundamental rights even if they are not specifically spelled out in the text.
The new ruling “cannot but induce a strong sense of whiplash,” Kagan wrote.
Kagan also referred back to the Supreme Court’s ruling last year that upheld state bans on gender transition treatments for transgender kids. In that case, she noted, the court chose not to take up a separate parental rights question brought by parents who want their children to receive gender-affirming care.
In that case, the court “would not even hear the parents out on their substantive due process claim,” she wrote.
The Thomas More Society, a conservative group representing the parents and teachers in the California case, described the ruling in a statement as “the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation.”
Paul Jonna, one of the group’s lawyers, added that the decision “told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.”
A spokesman for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who was defending the state policy, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The challengers said in court papers that various policies, including guidance documents issued by the state’s Education Department in 2016 and the attorney general’s office in 2024, violate their right to guide their children’s education.
They cited, in part, the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in favor of religious parents who objected to the approval of LGBTQ-themed books for use in elementary school classrooms.
Lawyers for the state argued in response that the policies are not as broad as the plaintiffs suggest and that the district judge’s ruling was far more sweeping than necessary.
“Currently, under California’s laws and constitutional provisions on privacy and antidiscrimination, schools may balance parental interests with students’ particular needs and circumstances, such as the risk of harm upon disclosure of the student’s gender identity without student consent,” they wrote.
The rules “allow disclosure to parents in some circumstances and limit disclosure in others,” the lawyers said.
The 2024 guidance specifically says any school board that has a “forced disclosure” policy requiring parental notification about gender identity in every circumstance violates state antidiscrimination law, as well as the student’s right to privacy.
The guidance covers students who, for example, ask administrators to use pronouns that are different from their genders assigned at birth.
