In an emergency ruling this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to block gender secrecy policies in California public schools that deliberately hide gender confusion from a child’s parents. The opinion concluded that withholding gender information from parents, namely those who have religious objections to gender ideology, is an “intrusion on parents’ Free Exercise rights.” The High Court sided with parents stating their Free Exercise claims “are likely to succeed on the merits” and that the secrecy policies “likely violate” parental rights regarding their child’s upbringing and education.

In Mirabelli, et al. v. Bonta, a group of parents and teachers represented by Thomas More Society challenged the secrecy policies arguing they infringed on their First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise of religion rights. The policies restrained public school teachers and staff from informing parents about unusual gender expression from their child unless the child consented.  The policies applied to children as young as two and as old as seventeen.

The Supreme Court order reinstates a district court permanent injunction that halts these California policies that had required school administrators to keep “gender-transitions” secret, maintain dual sets of student records, and directed teachers to lie to parents. In December 2025, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled the policies unconstitutional stating that “parents have a right to receive gender information,” and “teachers have a right to provide to parents accurate information about a child’s gender identity.” A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals paused the injunction in January 2026 skeptical the lower court ruling was appropriately tailored.

However, SCOTUS noted that “parents—not the State—have primary authority” over “the upbringing and education of children” and that gender secrecy policies “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

“The right protected by [Supreme Court] precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health,” reads the opinion. “…California’s policies conceal…and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours. These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.” 

Since this was an emergency ruling that vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and restored Judge Benitez’s injunction, the litigation still awaits a full court rehearing in the Ninth Circuit and could return to the Supreme Court for a final decision.

While the ruling directly addresses the parents’ claims, it did not address the teachers who jointly sued who are also adversely affected by these policies. However, since the court order effectively blocks the secrecy policies for parents, teachers then cannot be forced to lie, mislead, or conceal information from them and a full rehearing of the case will likely address the teachers’ First Amendment claims also. 

According to Defending Education, a grassroots organization promoting non-political education in the public classroom, at least 1,215 U.S. school districts have adopted secrecy policies to keep parents in the dark regarding any change in their child’s gender-related behavior. The policies span across 37 states covering more than 21,000 schools with more than 12 million children enrolled. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Supreme Court’s emergency ruling is another testament that parental rights cannot be usurped by the state. Public schools have no business keeping harmful secrets from parents. Requiring teachers to be dishonest with parents in the course of their job was an unconscionable decision by California school officials. Moreover, parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children. Gender secrecy policies put teachers and parents at odds when they should be united toward a child’s well-being. All parental exclusion policies should be eliminated nationwide, and this ruling is a key step in that direction.”