The Supreme Court Monday vindicated parental rights, upholding an injunction against California’s gender secrecy policy, which mandated that school staff hide a student’s claimed transgender identity from parents unless the student expressly consented to reveal it.
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society, said in a statement responding to the decision Monday. “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,” Jonna added.
Challenging the Gender Secrecy Policies
The Thomas More Society sued on behalf of teachers in the state who feared punishment if they refused to lie about a student’s gender identity. Parents and other teachers joined the lawsuit, challenging the Escondido Union School District’s policy of hiding students’ gender identities from parents unless students consented to reveal them.
The teachers also sued the California Department of Education, which has a similar policy.
While a district court judge issued a permanent injunction blocking the schools from enforcing gender secrecy policies, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted the school district and the state a stay of the injunction.
The Supreme Court’s Parental Rights Ruling
The Supreme Court issued an unsigned opinion vacating the 9th Circuit’s stay when it comes to the parents. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have ruled in favor of the parents and the teachers, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor would not have taken up the case.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent, which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined.
The court’s unsigned opinion recounted the story of two parents who didn’t know their eighth grade daughter publicly identified as a boy until after she attempted to commit suicide and was hospitalized. Months after her daughter left the hospital, she returned to the hospital after further risk of self-harm. Their daughter attended a different school for ninth grade and once again identified as a boy; that school also hid her gender transition, expressly rejecting the parents’ wishes. The daughter is now receiving psychiatric care.
The court concluded that “the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.”
California’s policies “substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,’” the court ruled, citing Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case in which the court ruled that parents have the right to opt their children out of receiving LGBTQ+ instruction.
The court’s unsigned opinion recounted the story of two parents who didn’t know their eighth-grade daughter publicly identified as a boy until after she attempted to commit suicide and was hospitalized. Months after her daughter left the hospital, she returned to the hospital after further risk of self-harm. Their daughter attended a different school for ninth grade and once again identified as a boy; that school also hid her gender transition, expressly rejecting the parents’ wishes. The daughter is now receiving psychiatric care.
The court concluded that “the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.”
California’s policies “substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,’” the court ruled, citing Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case in which the court ruled that parents have the right to opt their children out of receiving LGBTQ+ instruction.
“California’s policies violate those beliefs” and impose an “unacceptable” burden on them, the opinion stated. “Indeed, the intrusion on parents’ free exercise rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.”
California claims that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy, but the court ruled that “those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”
The court also found that the parents would likely succeed in claiming the state violated their due process rights.
“Under long-established precedent, parents—not the state—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’ 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 opinion stated.
The court found that “the denial of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights during the potentially protracted appellate process constitutes irreparable harm.”
“California’s policies violate those beliefs” and impose an “unacceptable” burden on them, the opinion stated. “Indeed, the intrusion on parents’ free exercise rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.”
California claims that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy, but the court ruled that “those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”
The court also found that the parents would likely succeed in claiming the state violated their due process rights.
“Under long-established precedent, parents—not the state—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’ 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 opinion stated.
The court found that “the denial of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights during the potentially protracted appellate process constitutes irreparable harm.”
The court also noted that the district court’s injunction permits California “to shield children from unfit parents by enforcing child-abuse laws and removing children from parental custody in appropriate cases,” thus allowing for the key interest of protecting children while protecting parental rights.
Justice Kagan faulted the court for issuing an emergency ruling after receiving “scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute,” and without holding an oral argument or debating in conference.
Wrapping Up the Parental Rights Case
The court did not uphold the right of teachers to refuse to lie to parents—the key issue at the beginning of the case—but the ruling here only applies to the injunction; it does not resolve the overall case.
That said, lower courts will follow the Supreme Court’s lead and uphold the fundamental rights of parents against gender secrecy policies, making the case a pivotal victory for parental rights.
Tyler O’Neil is senior editor at The Daily Signal and the author of two books: “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” and “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.”
Reprinted with permission from The Daily Signal by Tyler O’Neil.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.
One would hope that those who hide children from parents consent would be the first to experience that travesty. Unfortunately for all affected parents they are alone to pick up the pieces after the damages are made permanent. The evil people who are responsible slither back into the muck from where they came only to emerge again. Dems are responsible, let’s transition them from any authority first.
Such evil in the world. Come Lord Jesus.
SHAME on the three justices who would have continued to allow the government to do life-changing things to children in secret.
Always extreme things in California. No one could ever pay me enough to live there. Good one for SCOTUS.
The whole gender identity hoax is fueled by mentally sick perverted groomers and sadistic butchers, disguised as ‘teachers’ and ‘doctors’, who brainwash and pervert the minds, mutilate the bodies and destroy the lives of children across the country.
These despicable, moral-less monsters are as evil as evil can be.
BUT TO NO ONE’S SURPRISE, THAT IS THE IDEOLOGY, AGENDA, PLANS AND GOALS OF THE DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS AND THEIR EQUALLY EVIL DEMOCRAT VOTERS AND SUPPORTERS.
Blue states that don’t follow the U. S. Constitution have in fact seceded. No difference in what the southern governors did during the civil rights fight or what the Democrats did when they started the Civil War. Unfortunately, the secessionists were given amnesty after the Civil War, setting a horrible precedent. Time to fix this. Violating the Constitution by a member of government is an act of treason against the sovereign, we the people of the United States. They should be given the same treatment as against any other sovereign.
I am 72 years old. Grandparents came to this country at 16 years old in 1920 to find a new life in the Americas. Grandfather WWI, Father WWII, Brother Vietnam War. Their heads would be spinning to read this. What has the world come to? God made 2 people to bring life to the world: man and woman. These evil people are torturing these poor children. Please world come back to common sense.
It amazes me that 3 of the Sups would disagree with this judgement. That speaks volumes of how the liberals think of parental rights. Mao would be proud. The judgement just reverses an obvious and egregious wrong that should be common sense. But, I still hope for the transitioning of children and for boys/men “identifying” as girls/women to be illegal by Congressional law, not just an EO that the next Democrat President can just undo.
How deeply deceived these teachers are! How can they be trusted with young minds? We must be so watchful and wary! They are siding with the serpent who said, “hath God really said. . .
Yes, God did say boys are boys and girls are girls! We can trust Him!
AGREE 1000%, kids are kids and under the control and responsibility of their parents. About time the schools started respecting their rights.
It is sad to have to sue to try to stop this insane nonsense that the radical liberals have given to society. It is an indicator of what these liberals are doing to destroy our society. As any good Communist would do, they are destroying our very societal core which comes from civil law and the Ten Commandants. We must continue to pray that more people will join our fight to take back our rights as parents and save our children. They are our most important assets and will be our leaders in the future. We cannot survive if we continue to allow these liberals to corrode our social core.