This case originated in the Southern District of California in 2023, when teachers and parents challenged California policies requiring schools to use students' preferred names and pronouns and prohibiting schools from disclosing a student's gender transitioning to parents without the student's consent. Teachers sought exemptions from these policies, and parents joined the suit, alleging that the policies prevented them from knowing when their children were presenting as a different gender at school. Some parents, like the Poes, learned of their daughter's transition only after she attempted suicide, while others, like the Does, were told by school officials that state law prohibited them from sharing such information. The District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, issuing a permanent injunction that barred schools from misleading parents about their children's gender presentation and required schools to follow parents' directions regarding names and pronouns. The Ninth Circuit stayed this injunction pending appeal, citing concerns about class certification and the breadth of the injunction, and expressing skepticism about the constitutional claims. The plaintiffs then applied to the Supreme Court to vacate the stay.
The Court granted the application to vacate the stay, applying the four-factor test for emergency relief. First, regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, the Court found that parents seeking religious exemptions are likely to succeed on their Free Exercise Clause claim. The Court reasoned that California's policies substantially interfere with the right of parents to guide the religious development of their children, a right protected under precedents like Wisconsin v. Yoder. The Court noted that the intrusion here—unconsented facilitation of a child's gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks in a previous case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and that the policies likely fail strict scrutiny because they are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in safety. Second, the Court held that parents asserting Due Process claims are also likely to succeed. Citing Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska, the Court affirmed that parents have primary authority over the upbringing and education of their children, including the right to participate in decisions regarding their children's mental health. The Court found that California's policies, which conceal gender dysphoria symptoms and facilitate transition at school, likely violate these parental rights. Third, the Court found irreparable harm in the denial of these constitutional rights during the appellate process. Finally, the Court concluded that the equities do not justify depriving the parents of the District Court's judgment, noting that the injunction promotes child safety by ensuring fit parents have a role in consequential decisions. The Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit's procedural objections, finding that the parents have standing and that class certification was likely proper.
The District Court's permanent injunction remains in effect, requiring California schools to notify parents of their children's gender transitioning and to follow parents' directions regarding names and pronouns. The case will proceed through the Ninth Circuit and potentially back to the Supreme Court for a final merits decision. The decision leaves open the question of whether the policies can be narrowly tailored to accommodate religious objections while still protecting student privacy, and it signals that the Supreme Court views parental rights in this context as likely protected by both the Free Exercise and Due Process Clauses.