Supreme Court blocks law against schools outing transgender students to their parents in California

Article (Archive)


By LINDSAY WHITEHURST
Updated 1:01 AM UTC, March 3, 2026

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for California schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the student’s approval, granting an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group.

The order blocks for now a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school.

The split decision comes after religious parents and educators challenged California school policies aimed at preventing schools from outing students to their families. Two sets of Catholic parents represented by the Thomas More Society say it caused schools to mislead them and secretly facilitate the children’s social transition despite their objections.

California, on the other hand, argued that students have the right to privacy about their gender expression, especially if they fear rejection from their families. The state said that school policies and state law are aimed at striking a balance with parents’ rights.

The high court majority, though, sided with the parents and reinstated a lower-court order blocking the law and school policies while the case continues to play out.

“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. California’s policies violate those beliefs,” and burden the free exercise of religion, the majority wrote in an unsigned order.

The court’s three liberal justices publicly dissented, saying the case is still working its way through lower courts and there was no need to step in now. “If nothing else, this Court owes it to a sovereign State to avoid throwing over its policies in a slapdash way, if the Court can provide normal procedures. And throwing over a State’s policy is what the Court does today,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, noted they would have gone further and granted teachers’ appeal to lift restrictions for them.

The Thomas More Society called the decision “the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation.”

The Supreme Court has ruled for religious plaintiffs in other recent cases, including allowing parents to pull their children from public-school lessons if they object to storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters.

The California order comes months after the court upheld state bans on gender-identity-related healthcare for minors. The justices also seem to be leaning toward allowing states to ban transgender athletes from playing on girls sports teams.

School policies for transgender students, meanwhile, have also been on the court’s radar in other cases.

The court rebuffed another similar case out of Wisconsin in December, but three conservative justices indicated they would have heard the case. Justice Samuel Alito called the school policies “an issue of great and growing national importance.”

The justices have been weighing whether to hear arguments in cases out of states like Massachusetts and Florida filed by other parents who say schools facilitated social transition without informing them.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, found in January that California’s policies violated parents’ right to access their children’s education records.

The Justice Department also sued after determining the states’ transgender athlete policies violate federal civil rights law.

-----------------
Hits keep coming, today.
 
I always hear the same thing from my fellow educators, "But their families may harm them!!!"

Families may harm their children for any number of reasons. Like getting a bad report card. Or using wire hangers. If you suspect abuse as an educator, you are a mandated reporter. You are legally obligated to file a report. We don't need this law to protect trans-identified kids from abuse.

I just always hated being in this weird space of what fucking name to use with the gender kids. Use their real name and the parents get mad that you're not respecting their kid's gender identity. Use their Aiden name to call home and the kid freaks out because Daddy is not supposed to know and then you get the counselor up your ass for outing the kid.

Then there's the kids who change it repeatedly and you're supposed to keep up with it. Fucking obnoxious.
 
I always hear the same thing from my fellow educators, "But their families may harm them!!!"
If that's what they're really worried about, then they could have instituted a policy where a kid identifying as trans can confide in a teacher, but that's where the accommodation stops without parental permission. But that isn't what they've done. What they've done is socially transition kids at school and *go out of their way* to hide it from parents. That's colluding in something that never should be done behind parents' backs.

And I'm 100 percent sure what this is about (what it's always been about) is putting kids on a path toward medical transition because otherwise it will be "too late", i.e. they won't be able to sterilize them before adulthood to satisfy the fantasies of middle-aged men in drag.
I just always hated being in this weird space of what fucking name to use with the gender kids. Use their real name and the parents get mad that you're not respecting their kid's gender identity. Use their Aiden name to call home and the kid freaks out because Daddy is not supposed to know and then you get the counselor up your ass for outing the kid.
A big reason why I've figured their stated reasons were always a crock is the likelihood of a teacher or administrator slipping up and calling the kid "Aiden" or "Luna" in front of the parents. (And that's not getting into the likelihood of the kid's peers letting it slip.) There's no way you can guarantee something like that won't escape containment, so if they were so worried about abuse, they wouldn't use trans names or pronouns.
 
Teenage me would have been appalled by this take but I don't think people under 18 who are living under the roof of a parent, guardian, or other caretaker should have a right to privacy from them. A reasonable expectation, sure, but a right, no. Especially not at school.

Like every kid thinks they have secrets that are a big fuckin' deal, but if it's something that's going to get you pregnant, dead, or in jail then your parents are going to find out about it and it's better that they find out you're screwing your boyfriend when they find a condom wrapper under your bed than when you have a dumpster babby at prom.

It's the parents' job to raise the kid and the #1 part of that job is keeping the kid from derailing their life over something dumb. One would hope that the school would support the parents in this, but no.

(This advice does not apply to Middle Eastern or Asian girls. Don't ever tell your parents shit. Stay away from them as much as you can and never get caught doing anything you shouldn't.)
 
Regular reminder that the only reason they'd want to keep it secret is because the schools are actively grooming the kids. Remember, this level of subversion is about getting your kid to become Marxists.
Teachers unions lobby for bills like this. It’s everywhere.

IMG_9958.jpeg
 
If I could have changed the name and pronouns that school staff were obligated to use to address me in elementary school, I would have been changing them twice a day just to be a little shit and annoy the teachers.
 
Confidential disclosure (allowing the child and the school/adult it’s disclosed to, to keep a secret) is known to be one of the key risk factors for abuse. Multiple awful ‘lessons learned’ inquiries have found this. So all safeguarding material in the UK talks about it.
You’re not supposed to have a secret with a child about anything that gives you power over them.
Troons and groomers (but I repeat myself) OF COURSE want this concept removed, it allows them to have power over the child.
 
I like how leftists are so high on their own farts they've deluded themselves into believing they care more about a child than their own flesh and blood, also denying (biological) reality once more.

I think it's been a well-established fact by now, after literally thousands of years, that the person most likely to prioritize the wellbeing of a child is their own parent, or close relative.

Now, yes, this is not always the case, but I would rather trust the parent than a liberal educator salivating at the thought of turning the kid into a tranny.
 
Remember, this level of subversion is about getting your kid to become Marxists.
It is a historical fact that faggotry was illegal in the USSR, and you capitalist whores forced faggotry and troons on us when you destroyed the USSR.
Capitalism is faggotry. Capitalism is stink ditches. Capitalism is pedophilia. Capitalism is prostitute contests. Capitalism is Epstein.
Get raped, solzhenitsyn.
 
It is a historical fact that faggotry was illegal in the USSR, and you capitalist whores forced faggotry and troons on us when you destroyed the USSR.
Capitalism is faggotry. Capitalism is stink ditches. Capitalism is pedophilia. Capitalism is prostitute contests. Capitalism is Epstein.
Get raped, solzhenitsyn.
Calm down there, Leonid.
 
I'm happy about this decision, but one thing stood out to me:

“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. California’s policies violate those beliefs,” and burden the free exercise of religion, the majority wrote in an unsigned order.

One shouldn't have to assert a "sincere religious belief" about sex and gender, that's like saying they have a "sincere religious belief" that the sky is blue, while their ideological opponents are claiming that it's green, it always has been green, and only bigotry and hatred would ever lead someone to assert that it is, in fact, blue.

If anything, the only "religious beliefs" here are the utterly retarded ideas that these leftist brain-morons hold about human biology. And if these public employees are trying to enforce those fringe, objectively wrong beliefs on children, parents and the community at large, that amounts to a state-enforced religion, now doesn't it?

I understand the legal rationale that SCOTUS used, and why they went that route, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ, it really shouldn't be necessary to jump through these logical hoops to state the fucking obvious.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole