SAN DIEGO, CA – A broad coalition filed twelve friend-of-the-court briefs this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Mirabelli v. Bonta, urging the court to affirm the district court’s landmark permanent injunction protecting California parents and teachers from the state’s school gender-secrecy policies. Thomas More Society serves as lead counsel for the class of parents and teachers at the center of the case.

In December 2025, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez entered a class-wide permanent injunction blocking California's “Parental Exclusion Policies,” which require public schools to socially transition students’ gender and conceal it from parents. After a Ninth Circuit panel stayed that injunction, the Supreme Court vacated the stay in a 6-3 decision on March 2, 2026. California continues to press its appeal, and Thomas More Society filed its Answering Brief defending the injunction in full at the end of August.

Highlights from the friend-of-the-court briefs:

Five sitting U.S. Senators: Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Kevin Cramer, Roger Marshall, and James Banks trace the right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing from Blackstone and Locke through the Founding era and modern Supreme Court precedent, arguing the injunction’s notice requirement is compelled by that unbroken history.

Florida, Idaho, and 15 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia argue that parental rights are among the “oldest fundamental liberty interests” the Court has recognized, and that states have their own sovereign interest in protecting the lawfully exercised authority of parents.

A national coalition led by Advancing American Freedom, joined by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, and more than 70 additional organizations and elected officials — including Concerned Women for America, Moms for Liberty, Students for Life of America, and state-based family policy councils from coast to coast —underscores the nationwide stakes of the appeal.

Three legal scholars: Professors Robert P. George, Melissa Moschella, and Eric A. DeGroff demonstrate that at common law, the “best interests of the child” standard was never a freestanding basis for third parties to override a fit parent’s consent, and that parental consent has always been the default rule for decisions affecting a child’s health.

The American College of Pediatricians and Dr. Jennifer Bauwens of the America First Policy Institute, each submitted briefs offering clinical perspective on gender dysphoria, arguing that social transitioning is a significant clinical intervention rather than a “magic cure-all,” and that excluding parents from that decision is contrary to sound medical practice.

The Manhattan Institute, Defending Education, and Dr. Leor Sapir bring policy and research expertise on pediatric gender medicine, urging the court to ground its ruling in actual clinical evidence rather than assumptions about parental unfitness.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which won Mahmoud v. Taylor at the Supreme Court, argues if secretly teaching storybooks burdens parents’ religious exercise, secretly facilitating a child’s gender transition does too.

Christian Educators Association International and Truth in Education each submitted briefs warning that conscripting teachers to lie to parents subverts the traditional role of teachers and that shielding sensitive conversations between school staff and children from parents removes a critical safeguard against grooming and abuse.

The Child & Parental Rights Campaign and Our Duty USA bring the perspective of parents nationwide whose children were socially transitioned at school without their knowledge, reinforcing why this matters far beyond California’s borders.

Tammy Fournier, a Wisconsin mother represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, recounts how her own school district secretly facilitated her daughter’s gender transition over her objections until a Wisconsin court enjoined the district and her daughter’s mental health improved under her parents’ care.

"Twelve amicus briefs — from sitting senators and state attorneys general to pediatricians and constitutional scholars, joined by parents who lived through what this policy did to their own families — all converge on the same point," said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel for Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. "And it is the point the Supreme Court already made in March, when it restored the injunction and held that California's policies likely will not survive the strict scrutiny that is required. Parents, not school bureaucrats, have the right to raise their children and to direct their religious upbringing. That means a school may not facilitate a child's gender transition without their knowledge and consent. The Supreme Court's word on the Constitution is final for every court below, and we are confident the Ninth Circuit will treat it that way."

“The Supreme Court already told California that its gender secrecy policy cannot stand. Now dozens of states, sitting members of Congress, physicians, and legal scholars are echoing the same message,” added Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “California should stop fighting a battle it has already lost and let parents back into their children’s lives.”

Briefing in the Ninth Circuit is ongoing, and Thomas More Society will continue to defend the injunction in full as the case proceeds.