{"id":21279,"date":"2026-03-05T23:55:37","date_gmt":"2026-03-05T23:55:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/?p=21279"},"modified":"2026-03-05T23:55:37","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T23:55:37","slug":"answered-prayer-supreme-court-blocks-secret-transitioning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/?p=21279","title":{"rendered":"Answered Prayer! Supreme Court Blocks Secret Transitioning"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n Reading Time:<\/span> 6<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court handed parents a huge victory by blocking California\u2019s secret transitioning law of children \u2013 for now.\n<\/p>\n

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\u2019 preferred names and pronouns.<\/p>\n

Visit your state page to pray.<\/h4>\n

\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

According to The Thomas More Society, which brought the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, \u201cthe Supreme Court ruled that secret gender transitioning policies in schools violate the religious liberty and due rights of parents.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

Christian Teachers and Parents Sue California<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The case is Elizabeth Mirabelli et al v. Bob Bonta, Attorney General of California, et.al,\u00a0which began in 2023.\n<\/p>\n

Two Christian teachers sued the school district, asking for an exemption from the school\u2019s policies regarding students\u2019 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.\n<\/p>\n

The State had also announced a new required training curriculum that directed teachers not to tell parents about their children\u2019s gender identity without the child\u2019s consent.\n<\/p>\n

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\u2019s gender presentations at school. It also required the school to follow parents\u2019 directions regarding their children\u2019s names and pronouns.\n<\/p>\n

A \u2018Trifecta of Harm\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n

U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, in his decision, called California\u2019s secret gender policy, \u2018a trifecta of harm\u2019, that\u2026\n<\/p>\n

\u201charms 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\u2019 rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students\u2014violating plaintiffs\u2019 religious beliefs.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

The school district appealed.\n<\/p>\n

On January 5, 2026, the Ninth Court of Appeals issued a stay of Judge Benetiz\u2019s 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\u2019s stay and restore the injunction pending appeal.\n<\/p>\n

Details of the Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling<\/strong><\/h2>\n

On March 2nd, the Supreme Court ruled to vacate the Ninth Circuit\u2019s stay and restore the district court\u2019s injunction in favor of the parents. Unfortunately, they kept the stay in place for the teachers.\n<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court ruled that the parents who seek religious exemptions would ultimately prevail on the merits of the case. The state\u2019s secret transitioning policies \u201csubstantially interfere with the \u2018right of parents to guide the religious development of their children\u2019\u201d which is protected by the First Amendment.\n<\/p>\n

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.\n<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court cited in its decision the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, writing\u2026 \u201cIndeed, the intrusion on parents\u2019 free exercise rights here\u2014unconsented facilitation of a child\u2019s gender transition\u2014is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud. California\u2019s policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

It\u2019s 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\u2019s education.\n<\/p>\n

We\u2019re seeing that trend applied in the Mirabelli case. The Court held that California had \u2018cut out the primary protectors of children\u2019s best interest: their parents.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

A Victory for Parental Rights <\/strong><\/h2>\n

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\u2026\n<\/p>\n

Parents have long had \u201cprimary authority with respect to \u2018the upbringing and education of children,\u201d including \u201cthe right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children\u2019s mental health. These policies likely violate parents\u2019 rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her concurring opinion, wrote, \u201cIf the 9th Circuit\u2019s order is not lifted, parents will be excluded\u2014perhaps for years\u2014from participating in consequential decisions about their child\u2019s mental health and wellbeing.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

The three liberal women justices \u2013 Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson \u2013 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.\n<\/p>\n

The Justices also based their dissent on the majority Justices relying on the Due Process Clause, writing \u201cThe Due Process Clause, needless to say, does not expressly grant parental rights of any kind.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

The dissent, written by Justice Kagan, also compares the use of the due process clause as being hypocritical for the majority, causing \u2018a strong sense of whiplash\u2019, writing \u201cCompare recognizing a parent\u2019s right to make important decisions about her child\u2019s health, with Dobbs, repudiating a woman\u2019s right to make important decisions about her own health.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

But Kagan\u2019s dissent concluded, \u201ca State has critical interests in the care and education of children. But California\u2019s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children\u2019s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line. And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

A Watershed Moment for America<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at the Thomas More Society, called the Supreme Court ruling, \u201ca watershed moment for parental rights in America.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: You cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent\u2019s back,\u201d Jonna said. \u201cThe Court\u2019s 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.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

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.\n<\/p>\n

This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents\u2019 rights to raise their children as they see best and puts every school in America with a secret gender transition policy \u2013 or even thinking about implementing similar policies \u2013 on notice. Praise God!\n<\/p>\n

Since the state of California appealed the lower court\u2019s 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.\n<\/p>\n

Intercessors, Let\u2019s Continue to Pray<\/strong><\/h2>\n

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 \u2013 made stronger by this recent Supreme Court ruling. <\/em>\n<\/p>\n

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. <\/em>\n<\/p>\n

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. <\/em>\n<\/p>\n

We give You all the glory, Almighty and Everlasting God. In Jesus\u2019 Name, Amen<\/em>\n<\/p>\n

Share your praises and prayers in the comments below.<\/h2>\n

Belinda Brewster analyzes cultural, political, and world events from a biblical worldview. Belinda\u2019s 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.<\/em>
\n \n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reading Time: 6 minutes On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court handed parents a huge victory by blocking California\u2019s secret transitioning law of children \u2013 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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":21280,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[5728,1781,316,56,1684,421,7032],"class_list":{"0":"post-21279","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-prayer","8":"tag-answered","9":"tag-blocks","10":"tag-court","11":"tag-prayer","12":"tag-secret","13":"tag-supreme","14":"tag-transitioning"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21279","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21279\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/21280"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}