The landmark 6-3 decision issued on Monday is the ‘most significant parental rights ruling in a generation’ and sets a major nationwide precedent, declared the Thomas More Society
In what is being hailed as an “historic” victory for parental rights, the United States Supreme Court ruled against California’s policy of hiding children’s “gender transitioning” while at school from their parents.
California had required school teachers and staff to secretly facilitate children’s “gender transitions” behind their parents’ backs. One family found out that their daughter had been “transitioning” at school with the support of school staff only after she had attempted suicide.
In the case, known as Mirabelli v. Bonta, parents and teachers had asked the Court to intervene after a federal appeals court paused a lower court ruling and reinstated the secret “transitions” policy.
The landmark 6-3 decision issued on Monday is “the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation,” declared a statement from the Thomas More Society (TMS), the attorney organization that represented parents and teachers against the state. “The Court found that California’s secret transition regime likely violates parents’ rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that the state ‘cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.’”
“The Court’s forceful reaffirmation of substantive due process sets a landmark precedent for parental rights nationwide, holding that parents, not the state, hold primary authority over ‘the upbringing and education of children,’ including the right not to be ‘shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health,’” explained TMS.
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” asserted Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP.
“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,” said Jonna.
“Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours,” wrote the court in its majority opinion. “These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”
The majority concluded that “the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim. California’s policies likely trigger strict scrutiny under that provision because they substantially interfere with the right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.”
Citing last year’s landmark Mahmoud decision, which ruled in favor of parents who had unsuccessfully sought to opt their children out of school lessons featuring pro-LGBT indoctrination, the court found:
The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs. California’s policies violate those beliefs and “impos[e] the kind of burden on religious exercise that [have previously been] found unacceptable.
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.
“No more can bureaucrats secretly facilitate a child’s gender transition while shutting out parents. California built a wall of secrecy between parents and their own children, and the Supreme Court just tore it down,” said Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of litigation at Thomas More Society. “This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents’ rights to raise their children as they see fit for years to come.”
“California’s policy of hiding a child’s gender transition from mom and dad was not only unconstitutional, but it was also dangerous,” said Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council. “No school should ever place ideology above a child’s well-being or a parent’s God-given authority.”
“This decision sends a powerful message: the Constitution still protects families, and California schools are not above the law,” said Burt.
The court’s decision split conservative and liberal judges, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
The case now returns to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration.
