Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mirabelli v. Bonta ruling casts doubt on the legality of school district policies that aim to protect transgender students’ privacy.
But even though the majority of justices sided with California parents who said those policies led schools to withhold important information about their children’s gender identity, the practical impact of their ruling is less straightforward amid a shifting legal landscape for trans rights.
In Mirabelli v. Bonta, teachers and parents challenged a California law that required schools to use students’ preferred names and pronouns and to not disclose students’ transgender identity — including to parents — without the student’s consent.
A U.S. District Court judge sided with the parents and teachers and ordered California to revise its guidance to school districts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit put that decision on hold, leaving California’s law in place while the lawsuit played out. The Supreme Court intervened before the appeals court could more closely consider the case, with the conservative majority finding that the parents were likely to succeed on the merits.
As an emergency ruling on the so-called shadow docket, Mirabelli doesn’t create binding precedent but gives a strong indication of how judges view the issue.
Conservatives hailed the 6-3 decision as a victory for parental rights that puts school districts on notice. A database maintained by the conservative parent group Defending Education identified more than 1,000 school districts nationwide with policies that limit parental notification about children and their gender identity.
“If you have been socially transitioning children at school without their parents’ knowledge, the Supreme Court of the United States has now told you in no uncertain terms: that is unconstitutional,” Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society, a conservative religious public interest law firm representing the California parents and teachers, said in a statement. “Get your policies into compliance immediately.”
But while the decision seems to say clearly that schools can’t withhold information from parents, the ruling doesn’t clarify under what exact circumstances they have to reach out, said University of South Carolina law professor Derek Black.
A narrow reading of the ruling could be that schools need to respond honestly to parent questions, but don’t have an obligation “to get on the phone and say, ‘Hey, did you know that Jane is going by John now?’” Black said. “That would be kind of absurd actually because the parents may very well know.”
Advocates for transgender youth, meanwhile, worry that some students will lose their only safe haven.
President Donald Trump has asserted through executive orders that there are only two sexes and that people cannot change their gender. His administration has investigated school districts over inclusive policies and threatened to withhold funds from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors.
Mo Turner, director of policy and advocacy for Glisten, a group that focuses on making education safe for LGBTQ youth, sees “a steady march towards trying to create a U.S. where trans folk don’t exist.”
“We are creating a harmful environment when we see school districts asked to forcibly out students, when we ask folks to chip away at the little pieces of independence that our youth are getting, as they try to figure out who they are,” Turner said.
When must schools notify parents about gender identity changes?
Last year’s Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor gave parents the right to opt their children out of lessons that violate their religious beliefs. But even before that, legal precedent going back to Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Wisconsin v. Yoder generally supported parents’ rights, Black said.
Those constitutional issues are distinct from political questions or policy preferences, he said, even if the outcome presents a “tough pill to swallow” for some.
“Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children,” he said. “I’m not saying every parent is going to get it right, but if you have to choose between the state, the school, and the parent, it’s going to be the parent every time.”
One exception, Black noted, was the 2024 U.S. v. Skrmetti decision, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors and disregarded the rights of parents who supported their children’s transitions.
Indiana, Tennessee, and four other states have laws that require schools to notify parents when a student wants to go by a different name or change their gender presentation at school, according to the Movement Advancement Project.
But on the ground, school district policies can be inconsistent, Chalkbeat reporting found.
And the Supreme Court did not address what actions should prompt schools to proactively inform parents. Does that obligation kick in when a student informs adults at school about a new name or pronouns? Or if teachers notice that a student’s friends address them differently?
“The implications for enforcement are so complex and almost impossible to comprehend in terms of how it will be operationalized on a day-to-day basis,” said Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center.
Asked if the state would be issuing new guidance for school districts, the California Department of Education said only that it does not comment on pending litigation.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office is “disappointed” in the ruling but declined to say whether they would continue to defend California’s law in court.
“We remain committed to ensuring a safe, welcoming school environment for all students while respecting the crucial role parents play in students’ lives,” the statement said.
Where do parental rights begin and end?
Social conservatives and the Trump administration have accused schools for years of facilitating children’s gender transitions. Most often, this refers to schools using children’s preferred names and pronouns as part of a process of social transition.
Such accusations touch on highly sensitive and disputed questions of parental rights and the role of schools and educators in children’s lives. Sometimes children or teens ask to go by a different name or gender identity at school and ask trusted teachers not to tell their parents because they fear their parents will respond negatively. Schools might continue to use a student’s legal name and gender in communications with parents.
These decisions can have high stakes for everyone involved. One set of parents in Mirabelli said they did not know their child identified as a different gender until they were hospitalized for a suicide attempt. At the same time, between 20% and 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ, with many reporting that parental rejection and abuse contributed to them leaving home.
Black said policies that treat parental involvement as the default and carve out clearly defined safety exemptions might withstand legal scrutiny better than those that tightly limit disclosure.
Robert Pondiscio, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a blog post that the decision was “a quiet victory for public schools and teachers.”
“Teachers do their best work when aligned with families, not forced to participate in secrecy regimes that invite suspicion,” he wrote.
Absent from Mirabelli was any consideration of students’ rights or agency. In an unrelated Colorado case, a U.S. District Court judge rejected the parents’ claim that district policies limiting disclosure had harmed them. “The District is not the decision maker at issue: the student is,” the judge wrote.
These and other legal questions could get more consideration if the Supreme Court takes up any of the several dozen cases working their way up through the lower courts.
Like Mahmoud before it, Mirabelli raises other questions about where parental rights begin and end, and whether it matters if parents’ claims are grounded in religious belief. Many states allow teenagers younger than 18 to consent to mental health treatment, medical care, working during school hours, sex, and even marriage without parental permission.
Writing in Vox, Ian Millhiser said the decision’s description of parental rights was so broad that it could require schools to report students to their parents if they dated a classmate, ate non-kosher food, or removed their hijab after arriving on school grounds.
The Education Department, meanwhile, has ongoing investigations into California and Maine based on accusations they violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which lays out students’ privacy rights in school and also gives parents access to students’ educational records, by withholding information. Conservative advocacy groups have filed civil rights complaints that make similar claims.
FERPA requires schools to share written records, such as a formal gender support plan, with parents, but experts question whether it requires proactive disclosure. The administration could draw on Mirabelli to bolster its pursuit of these claims, but on its own, the decision doesn’t change the law.
Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.
