On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a stay issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mirabelli v. Bonta, reactivating a lower court order that directs the State of California to refrain from permitting or requiring schools to maintain confidentiality of information about student gender presentation. In the emergency order, the Court stated that the parents in the case — a class of parents who object to state policies around student privacy or policies they feel violate their religious freedom — had a likelihood of prevailing on their appeal. The Court did not grant relief to the teacher plaintiffs in the case. This article contains a summary of the decision, a list of actions for local educational agencies and a set of additional key takeaways.
The Court’s order (which was an unsigned Per Curiam order) was unique, in that the Court typically does not issue written opinions when granting emergency orders of this type. The Court went through the elements of what is required for a party to obtain a stay and determined that the Ninth Circuit erroneously granted the stay of the lower court’s order. The Court noted that the parents were likely to prevail on their appeal based on their First Amendment right to religious freedom and their 14th Amendment right to substantive due process, which provides them the right to “direct the upbringing and medical care of their children.” The Court also held that the parents would be harmed by enforcing the stay while the appeal is considered but did not address any potential harm to students that could result from the immediate enforcement of the district court’s order. The Court approved the district court’s certification of a class action, though did not provide any analysis for that holding, and determined that any parents who “object to the challenged policies or seek religious exemptions” had standing in the appeal.
As to the First Amendment claim, the Court cited its earlier decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which required LEAs to provide parents with the ability to opt out of curriculum that violates their religious beliefs. Mahmoud requires a court to apply “strict scrutiny” when ruling on complaints by parents that their religious rights have been violated in the school setting, which is the highest standard available and the most difficult to successfully challenge. While the Ninth Circuit believed that Mahmoud only applied to curriculum, the Supreme Court expanded Mahmoud’s reach, stating that it applies to any religious claim in a school setting. As to whether the state’s interest in setting the policy in question, which included student privacy and safety, was “compelling” or constitutionally sufficient to withstand the required standard of scrutiny, the Court held that the state’s policies were not narrowly tailored enough to meet that interest and yet protect parents’ First Amendment rights. The Court opined that a policy that allows religious exemptions “while precluding gender-identity disclosure to parents who would engage in abuse,” however, would be narrow enough. The Court did not offer any insight into how LEAs would know that such parents would engage in abuse.
As to the 14th Amendment claim, the Court indicated that it believes that all students with gender incongruence are suffering from the medical condition of gender dysphoria. The Court noted that, based on previous precedent, parents have a right to participate in their children’s medical care; thus, policies that restrict parents from information about a student’s gender incongruence likely violate the parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Interestingly, the district court relied on the 14th Amendment right to substantive due process — a legal theory that holds that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protects fundamental constitutional rights from government interference — a doctrine that this Supreme Court has often been reluctant to enforce or rely on. However, in this case, while it did not use the term “substantive due process,” the Court’s 14th Amendment argument relied on that doctrine.
Importantly for LEAs, the district court order that is now effective again — applying to parents only — directs the state, and “those persons in active concert or participation with” the state to refrain from enforcing any laws, guidance, training or other policies that would do any of the following:
- Permit or require any employee in the California statewide education system to mislead a parent or guardian of a minor child about the child’s gender presentation at school, including lying to a parent, refusing to provide information when asked, refusing to provide student records, and allowing students to go by something other than their legal name and pronouns assigned at birth, if a parent objects.
- Permit or require anyone in the California statewide education system to use a name or pronoun to refer to any child that does not match the child’s legal name and pronouns, where the parent or guardian has objected to such use.
There are no exceptions to the requirements above. The state must also include disclaimer language in any training materials, which provides, in summary, that parents have the constitutional right to be informed if their child expresses gender incongruence at school. (Certain parts of the disclaimer language applies to teachers, so that language is likely stayed. However, the California Department of Education [CDE] has included the entirety of the language as an amendment to its Assembly Bill 1955 guidance.)
The district court’s order applies to all LEAs because it prohibits the state from permitting or requiring LEAs to engage in the conduct above and also applies its directive to “those persons in active concert or participation with them,” which would include LEAs.
While the Court did not indicate which parts of the district court’s order are operative based on its granting of relief to the parents but not the teachers, it is the understanding of CSBA’s Legal Department that the above listed requirements are the currently effective parts of the order as they apply to parents. Other parts specific to teachers or employees — numbers 1 (c) and (d) and a portion of the statement at number 3 in the district court’s order — remain stayed.
LEAs should consult with legal counsel regarding how to interpret the decision, but might want to consider the following:
- If asked by a parent or guardian, refrain from misrepresenting information about a student’s gender presentation or incongruence.
- Be aware of parents who have stated an objection to the use of certain names and pronouns for their students as the Court’s order requires LEAs to respect these objections. LEAs may receive notification from parents that they object and should be prepared to notify staff of such objections.
- LEAs that have policies that require staff to use a different set of preferred pronouns or names when speaking with a parent or guardian than is being used at school to conceal a student’s gender presentation are not legally compliant.
- If a school has told a student they will keep that student’s gender presentation or incongruence confidential from the parent or guardian, that student should be notified of the change in law. (It has always been the case that this information could be revealed if the parent made a student record request.)
- Maintain student confidentiality of student information from persons other than parents or guardians.
- Train staff on this change in the law.
- Review existing policies with legal counsel.
There are several additional key takeaways from both the Supreme Court decision and the district court order:
- The Supreme Court upheld the district court’s certification of a class action, which applies the decision to any parent in California that objects to the policies or seeks a religious exemption from them.
- This order likely affects all LEAs because the state is unable to permit or require them to engage in the conduct prohibited by the order and the order applies to any persons in active concert or participation with the state defendants, including CDE, which likely includes LEA staff. In addition, it is likely that every LEA has or at some point will have at least one parent who objects to the policies.
- The teacher plaintiffs will likely receive the relief they sought, even though the district court’s specific order as to them is still stayed. Because the parent’s rights prohibit the state from permitting or requiring teachers to keep information about student gender presentation private from parents or guardians, the teachers will be able to disclose the information.
- AB 1955, the law that prohibits LEAs from instituting blanket policies that require LEA employees to “disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent unless otherwise required by state or federal law” was not overturned. Despite some reporting, the district court specifically did not overturn AB 1955, and the Court did not reference AB 1955 in its order.
- Neither court indicated that minor students have any right to privacy or religious freedom at least in relation to their parents or guardians. However, it is likely that students still have a right of privacy with respect to non-parents.
- Neither court addressed a situation where individual parents or guardians, such as in the case of divorce, have different beliefs about gender and sex or different religious beliefs and do not want to have their child’s gender incongruence disclosed to the other parent.
The appeal will now continue in the Ninth Circuit. While the Per Curiam Order is not a final order, the dissent expressed worry that the order would be considered to be a final order on the merits. Certainly, the Ninth Circuit will take notice of the Court’s language in making its decision on the appeal. For example, the order’s expansion of Mahmoud will have to be taken into account in future rulings. The concurrence stated that the purpose of the lengthy emergency order was transparency, not to issue a final ruling on the matter.
LEAs should consult CSBA’s District and County Office of Education Legal Services at legalservices@csba.org or their legal counsel regarding their obligations under the district court’s decision. CSBA is currently reviewing its GAMUT sample policies and will provide updates as appropriate.
