Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a massive win to parents last night, ruling that California cannot keep a child's gender transition secret from their parents.

In the landmark 6-3 decision, SCOTUS granted Thomas More Society’s emergency application in Mirabelli v. Bonta, "holding that secret gender transition policies violate religious liberty and due process rights of parents."

California basically enabled secret gender transitions in school without parental knowledge or consent, and compelled teachers to keep that secret from families.

Thomas More Society called it "the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation."

The court found that secret gender transitions likely violate parental rights under "both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" because the state “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society. “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. 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.”

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

On the First Amendment, the Court declared that California’s “unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition” is an even greater intrusion on parental rights than the government actions struck down in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which addressed whether a Maryland public school district violated parents' First Amendment Free Exercise Clause rights by introducing LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks into elementary school curriculum without providing notice or opt-out options for parents with religious objections.

The Court’s decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta now sets a landmark for parental rights nationwide, holding that "under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to 'the upbringing and education of children'."

Parents can no longer be shut out from participating in decisions about their children’s mental health.

Thomas More Society said SCOTUS's "forceful reaffirmation of substantive due process" in Mirabelli v. Bonta sets a precedent for parental rights nationwide: parents, not the state, hold primary authority over “the upbringing and education of children,” including the right not to be “shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”

The injunction not only protects the plaintiffs named in the case and entire classes of parents, but it also shields teachers since the decision effectively "prohibits the very policies that teachers were being compelled to enforce."

Of course secret gender transitions weren’t limited to California, they happened in Connecticut, too.

Who could forget the tragic story of Ilene Syed?

She was secretly transitioned behind her mother’s back during high school in Simsbury — but that was perfectly fine according to Connecticut’s guidance on gender transitions in school.

The guidance for transgender or gender diverse students was issued by Connecticut State Department of Education in January 2024.

It stated that “notice from a parent or guardian is not required in order for a school to recognize the student’s gender identity or expression” which sure sounds like “we’ll keep it a secret from your parents.”

It specifically said, "there is currently no law that requires notice from a parent or guardian for a school to recognize the student’s gender identity or expression."

CSDE explored the related question of "whether a school district is obligated to inform a student’s parents or guardians of the student’s request to be referred to by a name, pronouns, and gender markers that do not correspond to the sex that was assigned to the student at birth."

It determined that in certain situations, like when gender dysphoria or related emotional disabilities are pronounced, "parental communication and involvement are essential to effectuating a school district’s legal obligations" under Section 504 and the IDEA.

But CSDE did "strongly recommend" if there is a "good-faith concern" that sharing a child's gender identity with a parent or guardian "could threaten the student’s physical or emotional health" that districts and schools should consult with legal counsel as to how best to proceed.

CSDE added that "school boards can develop, and superintendents can administer, policies regarding whether such information will be shared with parents or guardians and, if so, the criteria for sharing, including, but not limited to, student preferences and student safety."

And that school's could develop policies that allow students to use a "chosen name, pronouns, and gender markers despite the objections of parents or guardians."

We contacted CSDE for a comment about changes to this guidance in light of the ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta, and will update you if/when we receive a response.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'