“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Some parents and teachers in California have opposed protections for students’ privacy around gender transitioning
What has happened in this case?
A number of parents and teachers challenged a California law that protects students’ privacy by keeping private gender transitioning efforts by students if they wish and by requiring teachers to cooperate in such efforts. A federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the parents and teacher. It mandated that schools disclose such gender transitioning efforts to parents and use the parents’ preferred names and pronouns for students. The Ninth Circuit stayed the lower courts’ injunctions pending appeal.
The parents and teachers went to the Supreme Court to try to dissolve the stay and let the lower court injunctions take effect while the case is being appealed. Trump justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett provided deciding votes in a 6-3 unsigned opinion in March 2026 in Mirabelli v Bonta that vacated the stay as to the parents.
What was the rationale of Trump justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett and the rest of the majority?
The majority maintained that the parents were likely to succeed on their claims under the Free Exercise of Religion clause and the Due Process clause based on its interpretation of previous decisions in favor of parental rights. The schools’ “uncontested facilitation” of a student’s gender transition, according to the majority, intrudes on parents’ free exercise rights to “guide the religious development of their children” and their due process rights concerning the students’ “upbringing and education.” Without explanation, Justices Thomas and Alito went further and would have granted the motion by teachers as well.
What was the basis of the dissent by Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor?
Justice Kagan wrote a strong dissent, joined by Justice Jackson, objecting primarily to the procedure used by the majority. As in many previous cases, she criticized the majority’s decision to resolve the matter via the Court’s shadow docket, involving “scant” and “inadequate” briefing and no oral argument or signed majority opinion, even though the Court had the opportunity to use its regular procedures. The majority gave short shrift to the state’s “critical interests in the care and education of children”, she wrote, and should have used its normal merits procedures to reach an opinion determining that parents’ interests outweighed them. Justice Sotomayor wrote simply that she would have denied the motion to vacate “in full.”
.
Why is the result harmful?.
As Governor Newsom has noted, the decision made possible by the three Trump justices “undermines student privacy and the ability to learn in a safe and supportive classroom” for transgender students. It is yet another example of the harm caused by the Court’s “shadow docket” procedures, and also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.