(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California policy that allowed schools to withhold information about a child’s gender transition from parents, based on constitutional claims.
In Mirabelli v. Bonta, a 6-3 decision, the justices said California’s policy violated the First and 14th amendments. While specific to California, the case has ramifications throughout the rest of the country.
Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, a case pending before the Supreme Court, focuses on parents in Massachusetts who said the school district their children attempted to attend sought to socially transition their middle-school-aged daughter after explicitly being told not to do so.
“School officials actively concealed their activities by using B.F.’s real name and pronouns when communicating with [their parents] but using her male name and nonbinary pronouns at school,” lawyers for the parents wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has chosen to relist the Massachusetts case eight times, which means it has not chosen whether it will take up the significant case. However, advocates said it is likely the court will deny hearing the case due to its decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta.
“Parents’ fundamental right to raise their children according to their faith doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door,” said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissenting opinion on Mirabelli, called for the court to hear Foote v. Ludlow School Committee instead of granting California parents’ relief in Mirabelli v. Bonta. Kagan estimated nearly 40 cases have risen to the Supreme Court’s review in recent years.
“By 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, rather than the inevitably truncated review the Court affords emergency applications,” Kagan wrote.
Kagan argued the decision should be more carefully considered, and pointed out that parents who are not concerned about religious rights need careful protection. This comes after the court’s 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a landmark case that extended parental rights for religious groups seeking to opt their children out of materials related to gender identity and sexual orientation.
The case also comes at a time when transgender issues are front of mind in the Supreme Court’s term. The high court will hear Little v. Hecox and B.P.J. v. West Virginia on Tuesday to determine whether state laws prohibiting transgender individuals from participating in girls’ and women’s sports is legal.
With a faction of the court supporting a hearing of Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, justices on the court could add the case to its upcoming term in order to settle the merits of parental rights in regards to secret transitions.
Defending Education, a nonprofit educational organization, has tracked more than 1,000 cases across the country of secret gender transition policies in school boards.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that parents do not take a backseat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids, especially not government bureaucrats,” Rienzi said.
