WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on March 2 backed parents’ right to be informed if their child changes their name or pronouns used at school, blocking California rules aimed at preventing teachers from “outing” transgender students to their parents. The 6-3 ruling, delivered in an unsigned opinion, underscored the principle of parental authority in education.
“Under long-established precedent, parents – not the State – have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,’” the majority opinion stated. “The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”
The case centered on a challenge to California’s Senate Bill 147, enacted in 2024, which prohibited school districts from requiring staff to notify parents if a student requests to change their gender identity. Four California parents and four teachers, represented by the Thomas More Society, argued the law violated their constitutional rights.
One group of parents testified they were unaware their junior-high daughter was being treated as male at school for nearly a year. Others claimed teachers deliberately misled them about how their daughter was being addressed.
The legal battle unfolded in lower courts before reaching the Supreme Court. In December, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego issued an order barring educators from intentionally withholding gender transition information from parents and prohibiting “social transitioning” of students without parental consent. Benitez asserted that California policymakers did not trust parents to act in their children’s best interests.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily paused Benitez’s order, deeming it overly broad and likely incorrect in its assertion of a Fourteenth Amendment violation. The appeals court clarified that California’s policy did not categorically forbid disclosing a student’s gender identity without their consent.
The Thomas More Society then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, arguing the appeals court had erred and referencing the high court’s 2025 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on certain medical treatments for transgender minors. They contended that California’s policies interfered with parents’ ability to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
California officials countered that the district judge’s order was overly expansive and failed to account for situations where parental notification could endanger a student, potentially leading to physical or mental abuse. Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized the complexities of balancing parental interests with the needs of transgender students, a challenge policymakers nationwide continue to grapple with.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the majority for acting hastily on a case involving “novel legal questions and arousing strong views” at an early stage of litigation. She accused the court of impatience, stating it had already reached a conclusion and was rushing to implement it.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, responded in a concurring opinion that the majority’s action was motivated by a desire to prevent harm to parents during the protracted legal proceedings. She argued that California’s policy would exclude parents from crucial decisions regarding their child’s mental health and wellbeing for years.
The majority opinion acknowledged that California could still protect students from unfit parents through existing child-abuse laws and by removing children from harmful home environments when necessary. The ruling leaves open the possibility of future litigation regarding the specifics of parental notification policies.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid a broader national debate over the rights of transgender students, with state laws addressing their participation in sports and access to gender-affirming care facing legal challenges. According to web search results, the Supreme Court is currently considering cases related to transgender athletes, specifically Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., which question whether state laws restricting participation in girls’ and women’s sports to athletes born female violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or Title IX. The outcome of those cases will impact similar laws in 27 other states, affecting an estimated 122,000 transgender American teens who participate in high school sports nationwide.
