The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday partially reinstated a district court injunction against California public school policies that deliberately hid students’ gender transitions from their parents. In an unsigned opinion, the court concluded that “the parents who object to the California policies on free exercise grounds are likely to succeed on the merits,” and that the “policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

The order reinstated a December 22, 2025 permanent injunction against California public schools, prohibiting the state from hiding gender transition information from parents, falsifying or maintaining two different sets of records, forcing school employees to lie to parents. The order also required the state to include a disclaimer on parental rights in its pro-LGBT training materials. The order made permanent a preliminary injunction first issued in 2023.

“Parents have a right to receive gender information,” ruled Judge Roger Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee in the Southern District of California, “and teachers have a right to provide to parents accurate information about a child’s gender identity.”

On December 26, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit put Benitez’s permanent injunction on hold for two weeks. At the end of the two weeks (January 5, 2025), the two Obama appointees and one Biden appointee shelved Benitez’s injunction for the duration of the court case — which had already languished for years.

The panel professed to be “skeptical of the district court’s decision on the merits,” suggesting that its recognition of longstanding parental rights would “expand the concept of substantive due process.” It also rejected the district court’s reliance on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 2025 Supreme Court decision allowing religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., to opt their children out of controversial sex-ed curriculum.

In response, the parents and teachers who challenged California’s policies appealed to both the full Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. “When the lower courts get the law so egregiously wrong, this Court has not hesitated to intervene,” argued the Thomas More Society, which represents the challengers.

On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision “with respect to parents” but not teachers, thus partially reinstating Benitez’s ruling.

“California’s policies likely trigger strict scrutiny under that provision because they substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,’” the court said. “The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs. “

(Because the Supreme Court considered the case on an emergency basis, without extensive briefing or oral arguments, their opinion considered which party was “likely” to prevail on the merits, which sends a signal but does not make a final determination.)

The court also insisted that the Mahmoud precedent did apply to this case (Mirabelli v. Bonta) as well. “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,” the opinion stated. “The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court argued that parental rights entailed “the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health. … 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.”

The court concluded that allowing the likely violation of parental rights and religious exercise of parents “during the potentially protracted appellate process constitutes irreparable harm.”

The opinion did not consider the likely merits of the teachers’ claims. Perhaps the Supreme Court surmised that no ruling was necessary, since by vindicating the rights of parents, they effectively blocked the policy that forced teachers to lie anyway.

The Supreme Court issued its opinion “per curiam,” meaning that no one justice put his or her name to the opinion. This likely reflects both the emergency nature of the appeal and the unusual level of disparity between the justices in this case.

With regard to parents, the court’s decision appears to be 6-3, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. Sotomayor merely registered her dissent, while Justice Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justice Jackson joined.

“The Court receives scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute. It does not hold oral argument or deliberate in conference, as regular procedures dictate. It considers the request on a short fuse — a matter of weeks. … The Court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly,” Kagan complained. “A mere decade ago, this Court would never have granted relief in this posture.”

However, Kagan conceded, “None of this is to say that the Court gets the merits here wrong. It may not — as to the plaintiffs’ free exercise claim, or their substantive due process claim, or both.”

On the other side, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also registered a partial dissent by letting it be known that they “would grant the application in full” — that is, rule in favor of the teachers as well.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett then wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (By process of elimination, this makes Justice Neil Gorsuch the likeliest author of the unsigned opinion, since he was the only justice who did not dissent or add to it, although this is far from certain.)

“Contrary to the dissent’s charge, granting interim relief is not a sign of the Court’s ‘impatience’ to reach the merits,” Barrett argued. “Instead, the grant reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents.”

Barrett also explained how a defense of parental rights under the “controversial” doctrine of substantive due process was consistent with the Dobbs opinion, as “a right to abortion is not ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’” while parental rights are.

Barrett also declared that “The Ninth Circuit (following the Sixth Circuit) significantly misunderstood Mahmoud v. Taylor” by interpreting it too narrowly, “and general course correction will allow the case to progress efficiently.”

Meanwhile, lawyers with the Thomas More Society basked in the positive hearing they received from the Supreme Court.

“California built a wall of secrecy between parents and their own children, and the Supreme Court just tore it down,” celebrated Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “No more can bureaucrats secretly facilitate a child’s gender transition while shutting out parents. … This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents’ rights to raise their children as they see fit for years to come.”