The Supreme Court blocks California’s restrictions on schools notifying parents of students’ transgender status
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday prevented California from enforcing state laws that restrict when schools can inform parents about students who come out as transgender and require teachers to use preferred pronouns for children.
The court, by a 6-3 vote along opinion lines, allowed a federal judge’s ruling in favor of parents who objected to the policy on religious grounds to take effect. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco has stayed the judge’s decision pending another case.
The court’s decision centered on the parents’ claim that their rights under the First Amendment were violated.
The court did not accept a similar request made by teachers who disagree with this policy.
“We conclude that the parents who want to be exempted from religion are likely to be successful in their request for the Free Exercise Clause,” said the court in an unsigned opinion.
“Parents who claim to want free exercise have sincere religious beliefs about sex and sexuality, and feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court added.
Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Kagan criticized the majority for issuing a decision without hearing oral arguments and spending more time answering a new legal question. The court’s handling of these emergency requests through what is known as the “shadow docket” has come under intense scrutiny, especially in the context of rulings throughout 2025 in favor of the Trump administration.
“The Court receives little and, frankly, insufficient information about the legal issues in dispute. It does not hold oral argument or deliberate in a conference, as normal procedures dictate. It considers the application on a short fuse—a matter of weeks. Then the Court grants relief in a short, dismissive decision designed to resolve the dispute,” he wrote.
The challengers claim that various policies, including guidelines issued by the state Department of Education in 2016 and the Attorney General’s office in 2024, violate their right to direct their children’s education.
They cited, in part, a Supreme Court ruling last year in favor of religious parents who challenged the approval of books with LGBTQ topics for use in elementary school classrooms.
“California requires public schools to conceal the transgender status of children who have been identified as transgender at school from their parents – including religious parents – and to actively participate in the ‘social transition’ of those children over their parents’ objections,” wrote the lawyers for the opposition.
Attorneys for the state argued that the policies were not as broad as the plaintiffs suggested and that the district judge’s decision was more stringent than necessary.
“Currently, under California laws and constitutional provisions regarding privacy and non-discrimination, schools may weigh the interests of parents against the needs of certain students, such as the risk of harm when revealing a student’s gender identity without the student’s consent,” they wrote.
The rules “allow parental disclosure in some cases and limit disclosure in others,” the lawyers said.
The 2024 guidance specifically states that any school board with a “mandatory disclosure” policy that requires parental notification of gender identity in all cases violates the state’s anti-discrimination law, as well as a student’s right to privacy.
The guidance includes students who, for example, ask administrators to use pronouns that differ from their gender assigned at birth.
