In a significant decision on March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California cannot keep information about students’ transgender identities from their parents. The court found that such policies likely violate the First Amendment rights of parents whose children identify as a gender different from their biological sex.
The ruling was announced by the Thomas More Society, a law firm focused on religious liberty issues that has represented both parents and teachers throughout the nearly three-year legal battle.
The case began when U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez ruled in December 2025 that parents have the right to know about their children’s gender identity information. He also determined that teachers have the right to share this information with parents. Following Benitez’s decision to strike down California’s school gender policies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit blocked his order in January while litigation continued. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court.
On March 2, the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court’s action, stating that California’s approach “substantially interfere[s]” with “the right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.” The court referenced previous decisions regarding parental rights and affirmed that “parents enjoy ‘the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.’”
The court wrote: “Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.”
“These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children,” according to the justices.
Paul Jonna, an attorney for Thomas More Society, described it as a major victory for parental rights: “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.”
He added: “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.”
Judge Benitez had previously based his ruling on both First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, asserting parental access to transgender-related information about their children. He also said teachers could assert similar First Amendment rights when sharing such details with families.
Benitez stated: “Even if [the government] could demonstrate that excluding parents was good policy on some level, such a policy cannot be implemented at the expense of parents’ constitutional rights.”
Daniel Payne
Daniel Payne is a senior editor at Catholic News Agency.See Full Bio
