U.S. Supreme Court Smacks Down California’s Law Prohibiting Schools from Notifying Parents of Child Transgenderism

In a huge smackdown to California Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Superintendent Tony Thurmond, and elected Democrats, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling today blocking California’s law prohibiting schools from notifying parents if their child is transgender.

Democrats’ attempt to turn California into a “trans-sanctuary state” failed, as it should have.

Adopted in hundreds of school districts under guidance from the California Department of Education, these rules mandated teachers to affirm students’ preferred names and pronouns at school—even for toddlers—while actively concealing this from parents unless the child consented, the Globe reported. 

Teachers faced discipline or firing for refusing to lie, treating parental involvement as potential “abuse.”

The Supreme Court, on an 6-3 vote along ideological lines, allowed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s earlier ruling in the case in favor of parents who oppose the policy on religious grounds to go into effect. The case began with two Christian teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, from Escondido Union School District. Joined by anonymous parents whose kids suffered irreversible harm from secret transitions—including one family discovering the truth only after a suicide attempt—the lawsuit exposed how California Democrats/bureaucrats overrode parents’ fundamental rights when Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1955 into law in July 2024.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had put Judge Benitez’s decision on hold pending further litigation.

The controversial law is Assembly Bill 1955 by Assemblyman Chris Ward (D-San Diego), the bill which prohibits schools from notifying parents if their child is “gender confused” or “transitioning” to the opposite sex.

Under the violating parental rights category, Gov. Newsom signed AB 1955. Horrifyingly, the bill’s title was “Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act.” The Globe warned there would be legal challenges to this horrifying law.

As the Globe reported when AB 1955 was signed into law:

“Assemblyman Ward’s rationale for authoring AB 1955 was so trans kids would not be ‘outed’ by teachers at school. Ward conflates gay kids with trans kids as if they are one and the same.

This is perhaps the weakest excuse for the bill even just legally, because laws across the country state that a parent must meet a child’s basic needs and parent in a way that serves the child’s best interests. Parents also have a financial duty to raise and support their children, as well as their children’s basic needs of food, clothing, housing, medical care, and education. This usually continues until each child reaches the age of 18.

A parent must also serve a child’s emotional and physical needs and protect the child from abuse. Most parents are pretty clear on all of this.

But the added layer of government interference into the parent-child relationship is disturbing, and legally dubious.

As the Globe also reported:

“The bill actually is promoting public schools hiding important health and medical information about minor children from parents.

By taking this stance of effectively promoting gender transitioning in “gender confused” students, schools are as treacherous as the Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy parent because they are enabling. In many couples, one parent opposes the gender transitioning of a child, while the other is pushing it.

AB 1955 appears to also be a back door way to allow schools to cover for Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, which is a mental illness and a form of child abuse, according to the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “The caretaker of a child, most often a mother, either makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms to make it look like the child is sick. It feeds her ego to be involved with medical professionals in deciding the course of treatment.”

“Often, they can describe the child’s symptoms in great medical detail. They like to be very involved with the health care team and are liked by the staff for the care they give the child.”

Judge Benitez demolished the state’s defenses, declaring parental rights as “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” the Globe reported. Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, he affirmed: “The constitutional question is whether being involved in potentially serious medical or psychological decision-making for their school student is a parent’s constitutional right. It is.” 

Benitez shredded the presumption that parents are threats, stating plainly: “Disagreement is not abuse, and the court so finds.” He cited undisputed expert evidence that family involvement improves outcomes for gender-dysphoric youth, while secrecy exacerbates risks like suicide and alienation (emphasis added).

The Supreme court’s ruling focused on the parents’ claim that their rights under the free exercise clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated, just as Judge Benitez did in his earlier ruling, and even as the Globe said early on.

From the SCOTUS ruling:

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.”

and

The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectorsof children’s best interests: their parents.

Justice Elena Karen was critical of the Court for not hearing oral arguments. But, the majority opinion added “One last point: The Court has chosen to accompany today’s order with a per curiam opinion that explains its reasoning. The choice to say more rather than less is perhaps the source of the dissent’s concern that our disposition of this application will be taken as a ‘conclusive merits judgment.’”