Supreme Court Decides Gender Transition Case

June 24, 2026

Important Takeaways: Schools cannot prevent parents from learning of their child’s social transitioning efforts while at school.

Facts: Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, issued guidance to school districts requiring them to adopt a non-disclosure policy regarding students who socially transition their gender while at school. Under the policy, district employees could not inform parents about using pronouns or names that conflict with a student’s biological gender without the student’s consent.

A pair of California teachers sued the state and the attorney general for violating their freedom of speech and freedom of exercise rights. Later, a slew of parents joined the lawsuit, alleging violations of their substantive due process rights to direct their child’s upbringing and their freedom of exercise rights.

In a federal district court, the plaintiffs won an injunction prohibiting California schools from misleading parents about their children’s gender presentation at school. The California Attorney General then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the court agreed to stay the injunction until the case moved through the court system. In other words, the Ninth Circuit prohibited the district court from enforcing its injunction until a proper trial and appeal take place. Normally, the case would go back to the federal district court that awarded an injunction on summary judgment for the case to proceed. Then, the losing party could formally appeal to the Ninth Circuit. After the Ninth Circuit makes a ruling, the losing party can appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case, however, took a different path to the Supreme Court. Instead of going through the lengthy, time-consuming appeals process, the Supreme Court bypassed the Ninth Circuit’s stay by placing the case on the “shadow docket.” The shadow docket is a list of cases that the Supreme Court has deemed as needing emergency relief. Historically, the shadow docket has been reserved for cases in which a death row inmate’s execution date is imminent, or for rulings on the lawfulness of executive orders with immediate consequences. Cases on the shadow docket do not receive a full briefing from the parties or an opportunity for oral argument. Instead, the Supreme Court takes the ruling from the lower court, in this case, the Ninth Circuit’s stay of the district court’s injunction, and determines whether that ruling was legally sound.

Court findings: The Supreme Court found that the district court applied the correct test for an injunction and that the plaintiffs satisfied that test. So, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay and allowed the injunction to proceed.

When analyzing a request for an injunction, courts look at four criteria. First, the court will analyze the claim’s likelihood of success. This step forces the court to look at the underlying claims. In this case, the Court considered whether the plaintiffs could prevail on their Fourteenth Amendment and First Amendment claims.

The Court found a likelihood that the plaintiffs could prevail on their Fourteenth Amendment claim that alleged a violation of a parent’s substantive right to direct their child’s upbringing. The Court turned to longstanding precedent that parents, and not the state, have the primary authority to “the upbringing and education of children.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-400. The Court went on to say that “gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.” Mirabelli v. Bonta, 607 U.S. No 25A810. In the Court’s view, the non-disclosure policy usurped the authority to direct a child’s upbringing from the parents.

The Court also found a likelihood that the plaintiffs could prevail on their First Amendment claim under the Free Exercise doctrine. Last year, the Supreme Court decided a case called Mahmoud v. Taylor. That case surrounded a school district’s policy to include LGBTQ+ storybooks in the library. The district had a policy of notifying parents when the LGBTQ+ books would be read aloud to the class, and offered parents a chance to opt their child out of that lesson. However, the district rolled back the notification policy and began reading the LGBTQ+ books without giving the parents a chance to opt their child out of the lesson. The Supreme Court held that the district substantially interfered with the “right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.” Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522, at 559. As in Mahmoud, the Court found a likelihood that California’s non-disclosure policy imposes a burden on religious exercise that the Supreme Court has historically deemed unacceptable.

The next factor in the injunction analysis requires irreparable harm. However, because opinions from the shadow docket do not require lengthy reasoning, the Court stated only that the denial of constitutional rights during a potentially lengthy appellate process constitutes irreparable harm.

The third factor requires the court to balance the equities at stake. California has an interest in promoting an inclusive and safe educational setting. The plaintiffs present their interest as promoting child safety. The Court held that the injunction promotes child safety by guaranteeing fit parents a role in some of the most consequential decisions in their children’s lives. Mirabelli. The Court went on to say that California can shield children from unfit parents by enforcing child-abuse laws and removing children from parental custody when appropriate. Thus, the Court found that the equities do not justify depriving parents of the district court’s injunction. Id.

The Court, for whatever reason, decided not to analyze the fourth factor. The final factor requires a court to examine how the injunction will affect the population. If the injunction is against the public interest, a court would deny the request. However, it can be gleaned from the Court’s analysis of the third factor that the current members believe it is in the best interests of the public to uphold the injunction and prohibit California schools from implementing a non-disclosure policy regarding the use of pronouns and transitioning efforts at school.

What this means: It is odd that the Supreme Court decided to hear this case on the shadow docket, without a full briefing or argument, because they easily could have selected to hear Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, which has identical facts. However, from this truncated opinion, it is clear that the current Supreme Court would strike down school district policies that exclude a parent from a child’s social transition process at school.

Mirabelli v. Bonta, 607 U.S. No 25A810. Read it here.

Please contact Bea, Megan, Kevin, Beth, or Kali if you have any questions.