A group of California parents and teachers filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 8, 2026, seeking to reinstate a permanent injunction against state policies that restrict schools from notifying parents about a child’s gender transition. The applicants argue that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in staying the district court’s injunction, which had blocked these “Parental Exclusion Policies” based on religious liberty and parental rights grounds. The filing highlights severe consequences of the secrecy policy, including an alleged suicide attempt by a student whose parents were kept in the dark. The appeal relies heavily on the recent Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), asserting that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children without state interference.
Case Info: Mirabelli v. Bonta, Emergency Application to Vacate Interlocutory Stay Order (U.S. Supreme Court, Jan. 2026).
Are parents challenging California’s law that prohibits parents from knowing what schools are doing about their child’s gender identity?
Yes, a group of California parents and teachers have formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and reinstate a federal ban on school policies that conceal student gender transitions from parents. The applicants filed an emergency request to vacate a Ninth Circuit stay that currently permits school districts to withhold information regarding a child’s gender identity from their guardians.
This legal battle has reached the nation’s highest court following a rapid sequence of rulings in late 2025 and early 2026. On December 22, 2025, a federal district court declared the state’s secrecy policies unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals paused that injunction on January 5, 2026, effectively allowing the policies to remain in force while the appeal proceeds. This application argues that the Supreme Court must act now to prevent immediate, irreparable harm to families and to enforce its own recent precedents protecting parental rights.
What are the specific facts of Mirabelli v. Bonta?
The case involves two teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, and several parents using pseudonyms (John and Jane Poe, John and Jane Doe) to protect their children’s identities. The teachers, who work for the Escondido Union School District, argue that state mandates force them to deceive parents in violation of their religious beliefs. The parent plaintiffs allege that schools socially transitioned their children without consent or notification.
The application details disturbing allegations regarding the impact of these policies. Plaintiffs John and Jane Poe state that their daughter was treated as a male at school for nearly a year without their knowledge. They only learned of the transition after their daughter attempted suicide. Another set of parents, the Does, discovered their daughter had been socially transitioned by school staff starting in the fifth grade, again without their knowledge.
How does the Ninth Circuit’s ruling conflict with the District Court’s?
The District Court for the Southern District of California ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on December 22, 2025. It held that the policies violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Substantive Due Process rights of parents. The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the state from requiring teachers to mislead parents or use names and pronouns that differ from school records without parental knowledge.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed and issued a stay pending appeal. The appellate panel expressed skepticism about the plaintiffs’ standing and the merits of their constitutional claims. The panel relied on a recent First Circuit decision, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, which held that social transition is not a medical procedure requiring parental consent. The applicants argue this reliance was misplaced and ignores the record showing that social transition is a form of psychosocial treatment.
What legal arguments are the applicants presenting to the Supreme Court?
The applicants contend that the Ninth Circuit’s stay violates the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor. They argue Mahmoud established that government policies substantially interfering with parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious upbringing trigger strict scrutiny. The filing asserts that California’s policy does exactly this by excluding religious parents from critical decisions regarding their children’s identity and mental health.
Furthermore, the applicants argue the policy violates Substantive Due Process. They cite longstanding precedent that parents, not the state, have the primary role in child-rearing. The application states that “parents only delegate authority over their children ‘under circumstances’ when they ‘cannot protect, guide, and discipline them’” and do not surrender their right to know if their child is identifying as a different gender.
What is the status of the “Parental Exclusion Policies”?
Currently, the Ninth Circuit’s stay remains in effect. This means California school districts may continue to enforce policies that prevent staff from disclosing a student’s transgender status to parents without the student’s consent. The applicants are asking the Supreme Court to vacate this stay immediately, which would restore the District Court’s injunction and prohibit the state from enforcing the secrecy mandates while the litigation continues.
Commentary
The Supreme Court faces a recurring and fundamental conflict between state authority and the family unit. The California policy rests on the premise that the state’s interest in a child’s privacy or autonomy overrides the natural and historical right of parents to direct the upbringing of their offspring. This is a significant assertion of state power that presumes the government is a more benevolent guardian than the mother or father. The notion that a school can actively facilitate a major psychosocial intervention like social transition while deliberately keeping parents in the dark strikes at the core of the parental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Courts often defer to educational administrators on matters of curriculum or discipline, but this issue lies outside those boundaries. We are not discussing homework assignments or dress codes; we are discussing the fundamental identity and mental health of a minor. The district court correctly recognized that deception is not a legitimate pedagogical tool. When the state compels teachers to mislead parents about their own children, it compels speech and violates the trust that is essential to the educational partnership between home and school.
The reliance on Mahmoud v. Taylor is particularly astute. If the Court has recognized that parents have a right to opt out of curriculum that contradicts their religious instruction, it follows a fortiori that they have a right to know if the school is actively treating their child as a different gender. You cannot opt out of what you do not know is happening. The secrecy element is the fatal constitutional flaw. It effectively extinguishes the parental right by concealing the very facts necessary to exercise it.
Finally, the harm here is not theoretical. The application cites a suicide attempt allegedly linked to this policy of exclusion. When the state erects a wall of silence between a child in distress and their parents, it assumes a liability and a moral weight it is ill-equipped to bear. The Supreme Court should view this application not merely as a procedural request, but as a necessary check on an administrative state that has lost sight of the hierarchy of rights in a free society. Parents are the primary protectors of their children, not the state.
Subscribe Like what you read? Please share this article and subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV for the latest breaking news and case information. Subscribers get exclusive access to case filings and expert analysis.
Disclaimers This article was assisted by AI. This does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations.
Tags Mirabelli v Bonta, Parental Rights, Religious Liberty, Transgender Policy, Supreme Court