Supreme Court Petitioned to Stop California’s Hidden Gender Policies in Schools

Attorneys with the Thomas More Society have turned to the U.S. Supreme Court with an urgent plea to intervene in a California case that pits state secrecy against family transparency. On Thursday, they filed an emergency application in the ongoing lawsuit Mirabelli v. Bonta, asking the justices to block policies that compel public schools to conceal children’s gender transitions from their parents. This move comes just days after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on a lower court’s injunction, effectively allowing the state’s rules to snap back into place across California’s education system.

The policies in question, rooted in Assembly Bill 1955 signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2024, prohibit school staff from notifying parents if a student expresses a desire to change their gender identity, pronouns, or name at school. Schools must accommodate these changes without parental input, even if families hold strong religious or moral objections. Critics argue this setup not only erodes the foundational bond between parents and children but also forces educators into a web of deception, punishing those who choose honesty over compliance.

The lawsuit began in 2023 when two Christian teachers challenged the rules, claiming they violated their First Amendment rights by requiring them to participate in what they saw as misleading families. By 2024, several parents joined the fray, including a Catholic couple identified as John and Jane Poe. Their junior-high daughter had been treated as male by school staff for almost a year, complete with a new name and pronouns, all without their knowledge. They only discovered the situation after her suicide attempt, a heartbreaking revelation that underscored the potential dangers of such secrecy.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez delivered a decisive blow to the policies on December 22, 2025, issuing a permanent injunction that halted their enforcement statewide for the certified class of plaintiffs—those with religious or moral objections. He ruled that the state’s approach unconstitutionally interfered with parents’ rights to direct their children’s upbringing and compelled teachers to speak against their beliefs. However, California Attorney General Rob Bonta quickly appealed, and on January 5, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel granted a stay, citing procedural concerns and mischaracterizing the injunction’s scope as overly broad.

In their Supreme Court filing, the attorneys contend that the Ninth Circuit’s decision ignored key precedents and distorted the record, allowing irreparable harm to continue. “Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel for the Thomas More Society. “The state is inserting itself unconstitutionally between parents and children, forcing schools to deceive families, and punishing teachers who tell the truth.” The team has also requested an en banc review from the full Ninth Circuit, signaling their determination to fight on multiple fronts.

This isn’t the first time California’s education mandates have sparked backlash. Similar policies have faced scrutiny in other states, with courts increasingly siding with parental rights. For instance, a federal judge in Kansas ruled in 2025 that schools cannot withhold gender-related information from parents, echoing arguments in Mirabelli. Meanwhile, advocates point to broader patterns, suggesting these rules form part of a concerted effort by progressive lawmakers to sideline traditional family structures, potentially exposing vulnerable children to influences without oversight.

From a faith perspective, the case resonates deeply with those who view parenting as a divine responsibility. Scriptures like Proverbs 22:6—”Train up a child in the way he should go”—remind believers of the duty to guide their offspring, a role the state seems eager to usurp. The Poes’ story, where their daughter’s crisis unfolded in shadows, serves as a stark warning: when government steps in as the primary authority, the fallout can be devastating and irreversible.

As the Supreme Court weighs this emergency request, families across California hang in the balance. If the justices act swiftly, they could restore a measure of sanity to schools, affirming that parents, not bureaucrats, hold the reins on their children’s well-being. Without intervention, the policies risk entrenching a system where secrecy trumps trust, leaving more parents blindsided and more children adrift in confusion. The outcome could set a national tone, either curbing state overreach or emboldening similar measures elsewhere.