The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a California law designed to protect the privacy of transgender students, allowing schools to inform parents if a student requests to change their pronouns or gender expression. The decision, made on an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group, reinstates a lower court order while the case proceeds.
The California law, passed in January 2025, aimed to prevent schools from disclosing a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity without their consent. Supporters of the law argued it was necessary to protect vulnerable students who may face rejection or harm if their families are not accepting. California officials maintained that students have a right to privacy regarding their gender expression, and that existing policies sought to balance that right with parental concerns.
The legal challenge was brought by a group of religious parents and educators who argued the law undermined their rights to be involved in their children’s upbringing. Two sets of Catholic parents, represented by the Thomas More Society, alleged that school policies had misled them and secretly facilitated their children’s social transition despite their objections. They contended that a parent’s right to make decisions about their children’s care is a fundamental liberty interest.
The Supreme Court’s order does not rule on the merits of the case, but rather temporarily halts the enforcement of the California law while the legal battle continues. The court’s decision comes after a similar case in Wisconsin was rebuffed in December, though three conservative justices indicated they would have heard that case. Justice Samuel Alito described the issue as “an issue of great and growing national importance.”
This ruling follows recent Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues related to LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom. In a separate case, the court upheld state bans on gender identity-related health care for minors. The justices are similarly currently considering a case concerning the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ sports. The court has also recently ruled in favor of religious plaintiffs in cases involving LGBTQ+ content in school curricula.
The temporary block of the California law has drawn criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates, who fear it will put transgender students at risk. Supporters of the law have expressed disappointment, but remain committed to fighting for the privacy and safety of transgender students. The case is expected to continue through the lower courts, with the possibility of further review by the Supreme Court.
