As our friend retired Colonel John Mills put it in a post to his substack, “It is amazing we are even debating this.” But it took a Supreme Court ruling to save our children from being secretly mutilated by insane public-school officials.
In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Supreme Court “granted a request from a group of California parents to reinstate a ruling by a federal district court that prohibits schools in that state from “misleading parents about their children’s gender presentation” and that requires schools to follow parents’ instructions regarding the names and pronouns that children use there. In a seven-page order, the majority explained that the parents were likely to prevail on their claim that California’s policies violate the parents’ right to freely exercise their religion and their right to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.”
In the historic and groundbreaking ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Thomas More Society’s emergency application holding that secret gender transition policies in schools violate the religious liberty and due process rights of parents. The ruling restores the class action injunction that Thomas More Society had secured against the State of California for parents across the state who object to the state’s directives requiring schools to conceal children’s gender transitions from their own parents, facilitate those transitions without parental knowledge or consent, and compel teachers to actively deceive families.
The landmark 6-3 decision is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation. 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.”
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said 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. The Court’s 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,” reported Katie Clancy.
Ms. Clancy further reported, Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society, added, “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. This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents’ rights to raise their children as they see fit for years to come.”
On the First Amendment, the Court declared that California’s “unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition” is an even greater intrusion on parents’ rights than the government actions struck down in last year’s Mahmoud v. Taylor. 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.”
According to a statement by The Thomas More Society, the Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to dismantle the class certification, finding that the parents protected by the injunction “very likely have standing” and that “class certification was likely proper.” This precedent-setting holding ensures that the injunction protects not just the named plaintiffs but entire classes of California parents—effectively shielding teachers as well, since the class-wide parental victory prohibits the very policies that teachers were being compelled to enforce.
The opinion bases the parents’ claims in both the free exercise clause of the First Amendment—citing last term’s Mahmoud v. Taylor decision and applying strict scrutiny—and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that secretly facilitating a child’s social transition is an even greater intrusion on parental religious liberty than the introduction of contested curricular materials, as in the Mahmoud case.
Ultimately, as the writers at the Gospel Coalition explained, the substantive due process reasoning may prove more consequential since it extends protection to all parents, not only those raising religious objections. By recognizing the strength of the parental-rights claim at this interim stage, the Court signaled that both religious and nonreligious parents are likely protected from policies that deliberately keep them in the dark.
The ruling reinstates U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s December 2025 decision on behalf of statewide class of parents, finding California’s secret gender transition regime unconstitutional. Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, wrote a concurrence emphasizing that this is a preliminary decision, not a final ruling on the merits. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented, arguing the Court acted too hastily through the emergency docket. Justices Thomas and Alito would have also ruled for the teachers, whose claims the majority left unresolved. Justice Sotomayor would have denied the entire application.
In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Supreme Court “granted a request from a group of California parents to reinstate a ruling by a federal district court that prohibits schools in that state from “misleading parents about their children’s gender presentation” and that requires schools to follow parents’ instructions regarding the names and pronouns that children use there. In a seven-page order, the majority explained that the parents were likely to prevail on their claim that California’s policies violate the parents’ right to freely exercise their religion and their right to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.”
In the historic and groundbreaking ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Thomas More Society’s emergency application holding that secret gender transition policies in schools violate the religious liberty and due process rights of parents. The ruling restores the class action injunction that Thomas More Society had secured against the State of California for parents across the state who object to the state’s directives requiring schools to conceal children’s gender transitions from their own parents, facilitate those transitions without parental knowledge or consent, and compel teachers to actively deceive families.
The landmark 6-3 decision is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation. 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.”
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said 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. The Court’s 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,” reported Katie Clancy.
Ms. Clancy further reported, Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society, added, “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. This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents’ rights to raise their children as they see fit for years to come.”
On the First Amendment, the Court declared that California’s “unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition” is an even greater intrusion on parents’ rights than the government actions struck down in last year’s Mahmoud v. Taylor. 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.”
According to a statement by The Thomas More Society, the Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to dismantle the class certification, finding that the parents protected by the injunction “very likely have standing” and that “class certification was likely proper.” This precedent-setting holding ensures that the injunction protects not just the named plaintiffs but entire classes of California parents—effectively shielding teachers as well, since the class-wide parental victory prohibits the very policies that teachers were being compelled to enforce.
The opinion bases the parents’ claims in both the free exercise clause of the First Amendment—citing last term’s Mahmoud v. Taylor decision and applying strict scrutiny—and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that secretly facilitating a child’s social transition is an even greater intrusion on parental religious liberty than the introduction of contested curricular materials, as in the Mahmoud case.
Ultimately, as the writers at the Gospel Coalition explained, the substantive due process reasoning may prove more consequential since it extends protection to all parents, not only those raising religious objections. By recognizing the strength of the parental-rights claim at this interim stage, the Court signaled that both religious and nonreligious parents are likely protected from policies that deliberately keep them in the dark.
The ruling reinstates U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s December 2025 decision on behalf of statewide class of parents, finding California’s secret gender transition regime unconstitutional. Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, wrote a concurrence emphasizing that this is a preliminary decision, not a final ruling on the merits. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented, arguing the Court acted too hastily through the emergency docket. Justices Thomas and Alito would have also ruled for the teachers, whose claims the majority left unresolved. Justice Sotomayor would have denied the entire application.
