Supreme Court delivers major win for California parents in Mirabelli case
The U.S. Supreme Court this week delivered a decisive win for California parents and parental rights nationwide. In a 6-3 ruling, the High Court partially vacated the stay put in place by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the high-profile Mirabelli case.
In December, a federal district court in Southern California issued a statewide permanent injunction in Mirabelli v. Olson, blocking California policies that instruct school districts to lie to parents about a child’s gender transition at school. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled in favor of Escondido teachers who objected to being forced to actively deceive parents, along with parents who said the policies violated their religious beliefs and constitutional rights.
Because the case had been certified as a class action lawsuit, the ruling protected parents and teachers across the state.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, where a three-judge panel granted a stay of the injunction that would have allowed California’s secrecy policies to remain in effect during the ongoing appeal. Instead, the Supreme Court overturned the stay as it relates to California parents, ordering the injunction to take effect immediately.
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society who represents the parents and teachers in the Mirabelli case. “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.”
In the landmark ruling, the Supreme Court considered the stay only, not the merits of the case. However, the Court said California’s secret transition policies likely violate parents’ rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the parents in the class action were likely to succeed on the merits of those claims.
The Court sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for consideration, reprimanding the appeals court for “brushing aside” the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor last year. Mahmoud upheld the right of parents to opt their children out of “LGBTQ+ inclusive” books and curriculum when it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court’s Mirabelli decision explains:
“We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim … 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.
… The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”
The High Court said the Mirabelli parents who objected to California’s policies on Fourteenth Amendment due process grounds were also likely to succeed on the merits:
“Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’ … The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.
… 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. These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
… And the injunction here promotes child safety by guaranteeing fit parents a role in some of the most consequential decisions in their children’s lives.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision is a major win for California parents because state education officials now have to abide by the injunction,” said Emily Rae, President of CPC’s California Justice Center. “Attorney General Bonta and Superintendent Thurmond can’t keep parents and school districts trapped in a gray area any longer.”
Rae is lead or co-counsel on several other California parental rights cases, including Chino Valley Unified School District v. Newsom challenging AB 1955, a California law that prohibits parental notification policies. That case has also been appealed by Bonta to the Ninth Circuit.
Rae said the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to consider the issue of school secrecy policies on the merits. Several similar parental rights cases are already before the Court and could be taken up soon. In addition to Mirabelli, Rae has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the parents in three of those cases currently pending before the Court on petition for writ of certiorari, including Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, Florida, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, and International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson.