SCOTUS: The Child Is Still Not a Mere Creature of the State

This week’s Supreme Court decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta is a reaffirmation of something most Americans already understand and feel in their bones: Parents must not be excluded from life-altering decisions about their children’s mental health and well-being.

In reinstating an injunction against California’s gender-identity secrecy policies, the Court signaled that rules barring schools from informing parents about a child’s asserted gender identity are constitutionally suspect. For more than a century, Supreme Court precedent, dating back to Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, has recognized that parents retain primary authority over their children’s upbringing: The child, in the memorable language of Pierce, is not “a mere creature of the State.”

California’s policy did not merely encourage sensitivity; it instructed educators to conceal from parents a child’s gender transition at school, including the use of new names or pronouns, unless the student consented to disclosure. The justification was protective: Some students could face hostility or emotional harm if parents were informed. Yet the effect was to institutionalize secrecy between schools and families on matters deeply intertwined with a child’s psychological well-being. That’s not a routine privacy decision. It is a profound intervention into the parent-child relationship.

It is also worth remembering how this case began. It was originally brought not only by parents but by two public school teachers who argued that the policy forced them into an untenable role: Keeping secrets from families about matters central to a child’s well-being. That’s not why most teachers enter the profession.

One suspects that many educators in districts with similar policies are breathing a quiet sigh of relief today. Teachers should not be forced into secrecy regimes that position them against families. I’ve written previously that public education risks “dying on this hill” if it persists in policies that signal contempt for parents’ legitimate role. Secrecy rules surrounding a child’s gender transition, even when framed as protective, deepen the impression that schools see parents as obstacles rather than partners. And when families begin to doubt that schools are candid with them about their own children, confidence in public education can only suffer in ways that are not easily repaired.

Thus, while it’s tempting to view this decision solely through the lens of culture-war conflict, the Court’s decision is, in an underappreciated way, a quiet victory for public schools and teachers. Public education depends on the confidence of families. When schools adopt policies that suggest parents are obstacles to be managed rather than partners to be trusted, they erode the very foundation on which effective schooling rests. Teachers do their best work when aligned with families, not forced to participate in secrecy regimes that invite suspicion.

Monday’s ruling also fits within a broader pattern. The Court, as currently configured, is steadily reaffirming parental rights as a serious constitutional principle. Justice Amy Coney Barrett made the stakes plain. If the Ninth Circuit’s stay had remained in place, she wrote, “parents will be excluded—perhaps for years—from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing,” creating a “risk of irreparable harm to the parents.”

That language echoes last term’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor in which the Court sided with Maryland parents seeking to opt their children out of curriculum materials that conflicted with their religious convictions. In both cases, the Court emphasized that parental authority is not a courtesy extended by schools. It’s a constitutional protection.

California was hardly alone in wanting to keep parents in the dark. According to analyses by Defending Education and The Heritage Foundation, more than 1,000 public school districts across 38 states and the District of Columbia have adopted policies authorizing or requiring schools to withhold gender-identity information from parents. Those districts serve more than 10 million students.

The implications of Mirabelli therefore extend well beyond one state. Policies that systematically exclude parents from consequential decisions are now constitutionally vulnerable under the same reasoning the Court applied here. Districts that treated parental exclusion as routine practice will need to reconsider those policies.

The Court has reaffirmed a simple truth: The state educates children, but parents raise them.

Reprinted with permission from AEI.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.