Reading Time: 6 minutes
On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court handed parents a huge victory by blocking California’s secret transitioning law of children – for now.
The law required that California schools secretly support children who wished to socially transition at school and not inform their parents unless the child gave permission to do so. This law required teachers to comply and use the students’ preferred names and pronouns.
Visit your state page to pray.
According to The Thomas More Society, which brought the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, “the Supreme Court ruled that secret gender transitioning policies in schools violate the religious liberty and due rights of parents.”
Christian Teachers and Parents Sue California
The case is Elizabeth Mirabelli et al v. Bob Bonta, Attorney General of California, et.al, which began in 2023.
Two Christian teachers sued the school district, asking for an exemption from the school’s policies regarding students’ gender and using their preferred name and pronouns. They were later joined by parents whose children were secretly socially transitioned at school without their consent. The children of these parents were in the 7th grade.
The State had also announced a new required training curriculum that directed teachers not to tell parents about their children’s gender identity without the child’s consent.
On December 22, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled for the plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction preventing the school from misleading parents about their children’s gender presentations at school. It also required the school to follow parents’ directions regarding their children’s names and pronouns.
A ‘Trifecta of Harm’
U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, in his decision, called California’s secret gender policy, ‘a trifecta of harm’, that…
“harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. It harms the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children. And finally, it harms plaintiffs [teachers] who are compelled to violate the parents’ rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students—violating plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”
The school district appealed.
On January 5, 2026, the Ninth Court of Appeals issued a stay of Judge Benetiz’s injunction order while the school district appealed. On January 8th, the plaintiffs filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court asking the Court to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay and restore the injunction pending appeal.
Details of the Supreme Court’s Ruling
On March 2nd, the Supreme Court ruled to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay and restore the district court’s injunction in favor of the parents. Unfortunately, they kept the stay in place for the teachers.
The Supreme Court ruled that the parents who seek religious exemptions would ultimately prevail on the merits of the case. The state’s secret transitioning policies “substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children’” which is protected by the First Amendment.
The Court also ruled that parents objecting because they believe they have the right to direct the upbringing of their children, which is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, are likely to succeed on the merits of their case as well.
The Supreme Court cited in its decision the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, writing… “Indeed, the intrusion on parents’ free exercise rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud. California’s policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands.”
It’s good to see Mahmoud being cited in this way. The historic trend in Supreme Court decisions is often to expand rights, not limit them. For instance, if the Supreme Court upholds the rights of parents to opt out in one area, i.e., inappropriate storybooks as in Mahmoud, then that right is often expanded to include other parental decisions regarding a child’s education.
We’re seeing that trend applied in the Mirabelli case. The Court held that California had ‘cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interest: their parents.”
A Victory for Parental Rights
Once again, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its centuries-old position that it is the parents, and not the state, who have the constitutional right to control the upbringing of their child. In very clear language, the majority opinion concluded…
Parents have long had “primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,” including “the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health. These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her concurring opinion, wrote, “If the 9th Circuit’s order is not lifted, parents will be excluded—perhaps for years—from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing.”
The three liberal women justices – Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson – dissented, not so much on the merits, but on the emergency process of plaintiffs bypassing and waiting for a ruling from the Ninth Circuit and instead going straight to the Supreme Court.
The Justices also based their dissent on the majority Justices relying on the Due Process Clause, writing “The Due Process Clause, needless to say, does not expressly grant parental rights of any kind.”
The dissent, written by Justice Kagan, also compares the use of the due process clause as being hypocritical for the majority, causing ‘a strong sense of whiplash’, writing “Compare recognizing a parent’s right to make important decisions about her child’s health, with Dobbs, repudiating a woman’s right to make important decisions about her own health.”
But Kagan’s dissent concluded, “a State has critical interests in the care and education of children. But California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line. And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief.”
A Watershed Moment for America
Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at the Thomas More Society, called the Supreme Court ruling, “a watershed moment for parental rights in America.”
“The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: You cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back,” Jonna said. “The Court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country.”
These Secret Gender Policies, also known as Parental Exclusion Policies, are enforced in over 18,600 schools in America. These anti-family policies create a wall of deceit between parents and their children and force teachers to maintain that deception.
This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents’ rights to raise their children as they see best and puts every school in America with a secret gender transition policy – or even thinking about implementing similar policies – on notice. Praise God!
Since the state of California appealed the lower court’s permanent injunction, the case Mirabelli v. Bonta will continue in the Ninth Circuit and could appear once again before the Supreme Court. But the Court has made its position clear. Parents have the constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
Intercessors, Let’s Continue to Pray
Lord, we thank You for Your wisdom being exalted at the Supreme Court and for answering our prayers. Thank You for this recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the rights of parents to guide the education and well-being of their children. Thank You for President Trump and the Department of Education instructing schools to acknowledge and comply with the rights of parents – made stronger by this recent Supreme Court ruling.
We pray that any school that currently has these secret gender transitioning policies will immediately comply. We pray that every plan, policy, rule, directive, or scheme devised by school districts to come between a parent and their child or block parental rights will fail. We pray that parents and all people in our country will awaken to the liberal ideology trying to destroy children and families. We pray for Your protection over our children, and may the evil that is transgenderism be defeated. May Your truth come to light and the eyes of the deceived be opened.
We pray for Your protection over Supreme Court Justices and pray that they will continue to decide cases according to Your will and Your righteousness. We pray especially for Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson that they may see evil through Your eyes and enlighten them with Your truth and Your justice.
We give You all the glory, Almighty and Everlasting God. In Jesus’ Name, Amen
Share your praises and prayers in the comments below.
Belinda Brewster analyzes cultural, political, and world events from a biblical worldview. Belinda’s passion is to equip, support, and encourage parents and grandparents who are courageously battling against the spiritual and cultural forces impacting children and grandchildren. Photo Credit: Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images.
