U.S. Supreme Court Emergency Ruling Affirms Parents’ Right to Receive Student Gender Identity Information

03.05.2026

On Monday, March 2, 2026, in Mirabelli et al. v. Bonta et al., 607 U.S. ____ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court granted, in part, an application to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay on the District Court’s class-wide permanent injunction in Mirabelli et al. v. Olson et al. (US District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-0768-BEN-VET).[1]

Put simply, this means that California public schools cannot permit or require any employee to withhold certain information from parents/guardians, as parents “have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school child expresses gender incongruence.” (Order Granting Permanent Injunction, Mirabelli et al. v. Olson et al., supra.)

Impact on California Educational Agencies

Previously, Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1955 (2024) prohibited California school districts from adopting or enforcing policies requiring employees to disclose information about any student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the student’s consent. Under AB 1955, school districts could not require employees to disclose this information except as otherwise required by law.[2]

California educational agencies which have internal policies or procedures prohibiting disclosure of students’ gender identity to parents/guardians must adjust their gender disclosure policies to align with the decision in Mirabelli.  The injunction prohibits schools from “misleading” parents about their children’s gender presentation and social transitioning at school, requires that schools follow parent directives regarding children’s names and pronouns, and requires any state-created or approved instructional materials to include a notice of the rights the injunction protects.  How each educational agency may need to update or modify its policies and practices to comply with the terms of the injunction, if at all, will be fact-specific dependent on the agency’s current policies and practices. We recommend working closely with legal counsel to ensure compliance with the decision, which may include bargainable impacts and effects.[3]

Factual and Procedural Background

A group of parents and teachers from Escondido Union School District (“EUSD”) brought a class action lawsuit to bar the enforcement of any law or policy that would “permit or require a California public school employee to “mislead” a parent or guardian “about their child’s gender presentation at school.” (Mirabelli v. Bonta, 2026 WL 44874 (9th Cir. 2026) (quoting Mirabelli, 2025 WL 3712993 (S.D. Cal. 2025).)  The parents and teachers challenged the gender nondisclosure policies of both the EUSD and state of California on religious and due process grounds.  On December 22, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted class-wide permanent injunctive relief to the parent and guardian class and the teacher class regarding California’s nondisclosure laws.  

In effect, the District Court’s injunction barred EUSD and California defendants[4] from “‘implementing or enforcing’ ‘the Privacy Provision of the California Constitution … [and] any other provision of California law’ that would ‘permit or require any employee in the California state-wide education system [to] mislead[] [a] parent or guardian … about their child’s gender presentation at school.” (Mirabelli v. Bonta, 2026 WL 44874 (9th Cir. 2026) (quoting Mirabelli, 2025 WL 3712993 (S.D. Cal. 2025).)  The injunction also prohibited defendants “from ‘permit[ting] or requir[ing] any employee in the California state-wide education system to use a name or pronoun to refer to [a] child that [does] not match the child’s legal name and natal pronouns, where a child’s parent or legal guardian has communicated their objection to such use.” (Id.) The injunction further required PRISM and other state-developed educator training materials to include a statement recognizing parents’ and guardians’ constitutional right to be informed if their child expresses gender incongruence. (Id.)

The State defendants moved for an emergency stay of the District Court’s injunction pending appeal, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted on January 5, 2026. Plaintiffs sought vacatur of the stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision

On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay only as to the class of parent plaintiffs.  In effect, this implemented the District Court’s December 22, 2025 injunction of California law regarding gender nondisclosure polices only as to the parents.

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that “parents who seek religious exemptions from California’s laws were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Relying on its recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522, 559 (2025),[5] the Court explained California’s policies “substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.’” California stated its interest in gender nondisclosure policies was in advancing “student safety and privacy.” However, the Court explained case law has recognized parents as the “primary protectors of children’s best interests.”  Therefore, the Court held California’s interest was not compelling enough to overcome the parents’ substantial interest in the religious development of their children.  The Court further noted California’s interest could be served by a narrower nondisclosure policy “that allows religious exemptions while precluding gender-identity disclosure to parents who would engage in abuse.”

The U.S. Supreme Court similarly found that  “[u]nder long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,’” including the “right not to be shut out” of decisions involving their children’s mental health.  The Court found “[g]ender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health,” and California’s policies prohibit a parent from being informed of a child’s symptoms of gender dysphoria, in violation of the parents’ recognized rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the application to lift the Ninth Circuit’s stay as applied to the teacher plaintiffs, though did not explain its reasoning for that determination. The Supreme Court’s opinion reinforces parents’ rights to be informed of and involved in their child’s education. However, this is not a final determination on the merits of the underlying challenge to California’s laws and policies or the implementation thereof; it is an interim determination on the District Court’s injunction while the appeal of that trial court decision proceeds through the appellate process. While appeals in this case are ongoing, among other pending litigation involving issues of parental notice policies from across the country, the Supreme Court’s opinion provides insight regarding the Court’s analysis regarding the subject as well as its application of the Mahmoud holding outside the instructional materials context.

California Department of Education

On March 3, 2026, the California Department of Education (“CDE”) issued a notice regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.  The CDE recognized that, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, there is a class-wide permanent injunction with respect to the parents and guardians certified by the District Court.

AALRR attorneys are closely following this case and remain committed to providing updates on its status, as well as on any other significant developments in this area.[6] For further information on the content of this Alert, please contact your AALRR attorney or the authors of this Alert.

[1] A copy of the District Court’s injunction can be found here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/27714183-25a810-order/.

[2] Read more about AB 1955 here: https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-4057

[3] Read more about that here: https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-4033.

[4] Such as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the California Attorney General, and the California State Board of Education.

[5] Read more about that case here: https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-4143.

[6] Our previous Alerts on this case and related issues can be found at the following links:

https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-4131

https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-4057#_edn1

https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-4033

https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-3995

https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-3987

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

©2026 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo