Supreme Court order puts California schools in legal limbo over transgender student privacy

This story was originally published by EdSource. Sign up for their daily newsletter.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week to reinstate parents’ right to be notified of their child’s gender identity has left California schools in temporary legal limbo and advocates concerned for the safety of transgender students. 

In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal to a conservative legal group and reinstated a San Diego federal judge’s ruling that parents have a constitutional right to be informed of a child’s “gender incongruence” at school. The Supreme Court stated that California’s student privacy policies allow schools to “facilitate” a student’s gender transition without parental notification, violating free religious expression and substantive due process. 

“The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation that parents — not the government — hold primary authority over their children’s upbringing and mental health decisions sets a national precedent,” Paul M. Jonna, plaintiff attorney at the Thomas More Society, told EdSource. “States with similar secrecy regimes are now on notice.”

Justices did not decide the Mirabelli v. Bonta case; instead, they vacated a stay issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reinstating a previous ruling until a final decision is made in the appeals court. Two former teachers from the Escondido Unified School District, later joined by parents, had sued against a now-withdrawn district policy prohibiting school employees from notifying parents about a child’s gender identity. 

In the meantime, California school districts are caught between legal compliance with the federal ruling and state law. Schools must now discern their own procedures and parameters of disclosure while complying with California’s SAFETY Act, a 2024 law that prohibits schools from requiring teachers to out students. 

Jorge Reyes Salinas, a spokesperson for LGBTQ advocacy group Equality California, said school administrators will be forced to make case-by-case decisions under potential legal risks until the courts issue a final ruling. 

“If a parent right now goes to a teacher and asks, ‘Is my child using different pronouns, or are they socially transitioning?’ They are now required to tell the parents, which does not mean that teachers or administrators are required to volunteer” that information, Salinas said. 

“It’s not forced outing, but this is still an issue for the safety of LGBTQ youth, because (the court) is basically saying their privacy doesn’t matter,” he added. 

Although the Supreme Court’s decision does not strike down California’s SAFETY Act, the court’s decision lets stand the lower court ruling against the California Department of Education’s interpretation of the state constitution’s privacy clause. Jonna argued that the state used the clause to give “minor students the right to transition” at school.

“As a result, parents were systematically excluded from decisions regarding their children’s gender transitions at school. Teachers were compelled to withhold information from families, and school districts that attempted to implement parental notification policies were warned they would be violating multiple provisions in state law,” Jonna said. 

LGBTQ advocates warned that the Supreme Court’s decision does more to jeopardize than protect students’ mental health. About a third of LGBTQ youth outed to their families were more likely to report major symptoms of depression than those who weren’t, with transgender and nonbinary youth reporting the highest levels of depression, according to a study by the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Connecticut. 

Heron Greenesmith, deputy director of policy at the Transgender Law Center, said that parents always have a right to know about a child’s growth and development. But children also have a right to explore their identity privately, they said. 

“Nothing in (California) law prevents youth from coming to their parents and inviting them into their lives,” Greenesmith said. “I’m a parent of a 15-year-old, so I can truly understand parents wanting to know and understand everything going on in their child’s life. And I can truly understand children’s points of view as they age and mature and learn more about themselves, that sometimes they don’t want everyone in their lives to know everything about them.”

The right to privacy is also a right to physical safety, Greenesmith said. A third of transgender and nonbinary children reported experiencing housing instability or homelessness, according to The Trevor Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group for youth. Those rejected by their families were up to three times more likely to experience housing instability than those with supportive families. 

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for conservative campaigns like Moms For Liberty, who have rallied against gender inclusive policies in schools. As California has bolstered mental health support for LGBTQ students, the parental rights movement has zeroed in on gender dysphoria as a perceived contagion to students’ mental health. 

“The reaction from the parents and teachers we represent has been one of profound relief and vindication,” Jonna said. “They are mothers and fathers who care deeply about their children’s well-being and teachers who entered education for their love of teaching and who saw that California’s policies were causing real harm to students and undermining their partnerships with parents.”

With the Supreme Court decision, California moves closer to joining North Dakota and Alabama as the states requiring teachers to out transgender students if a parent asks for the information. 

“Teachers are going to have to walk this line between seeing a student who is clearly struggling and does not have a safe place at home and decide: Do I support this student and risk violating state law?” Greenesmith said. “Or do I do what state law requires me and risk harming someone whose life and safety and success are in my hands?”

“It puts teachers in an impossible position,” Greenesmith said. 

The California Department of Education has not yet provided guidance on disclosure to schools, stating that the department is unable to comment on ongoing litigation. Because the Supreme Court did not grant injunctive relief to the teachers in the lawsuit, it remains unclear what teachers can disclose to parents when unprompted. 

“No educator should experience retaliation or have their livelihood jeopardized for following the law and providing safe and supportive learning environments for our students,” David B. Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, told EdSource. “Our union will continue to fight for our students and against politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety and dignity of LGBTQ+ youth.”

San Diego federal Judge Roger Benitez gave California 20 days to notify school districts of the lower court’s ruling. Jonna said the Ninth Circuit has already amended its prior order and is expected to rule in favor of the “binding precedent” set by the Supreme Court’s decision.