Washington D.C.- Thomas More Society attorneys filed a reply with the U.S. Supreme Court in Mirabelli v. Bonta, dismantling California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s defense of the state’s “gender secrecy” policies and asking the Justices to reinstate a federal court injunction blocking California’s mandate that schools socially transition children in secret, even over parental objection.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ordered Bonta to respond to Thomas More Society’s emergency application seeking to restore the injunction. After reviewing the Attorney General’s response, Thomas More Society attorneys filed their reply to address what they call “illusory” legal obstacles and clarify the urgency and constitutional issues at stake.

“California calls its policy of parental exclusion ‘balanced,’ but the reality is that it balances the parent’s interests like McDonald’s balances the cow’s,” said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel for Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. “The state assumes parents are unfit, seizes unchecked authority over children, and forces schools into deception. The Supreme Court must step in to stop the life-altering harm caused by California’s scheme of deception.”

The reply highlights the real-world devastation caused by California’s Parental Exclusion Policies. ‘Child Poe,’ the minor-aged child of one set of parent-plaintiffs in the case, attempted suicide after her school secretly transitioned her for a year without her parents’ knowledge. Yet as recently as September 2025—even after the suicide attempt—the Poe family received an email from their daughter’s school stating that “because we are legally required to follow California state laws,” the school would continue addressing their daughter by her preferred name and pronouns over their religious objections.

“Every day these gender secrecy policies stay in effect, children suffer and parents are left in the dark,” Jonna said. “This isn’t an argument about abstract laws and regulations. There are real lives at stake.”

The filing also exposes the weakness of California’s legal defense. After more than two years of litigation and full discovery, California produced no admissible evidence that parental involvement harms children. Moreover, California has attempted to obscure its Parental Exclusion Policies behind a web of regulations, FAQs, and legal alerts—what the district court called “wrestling with a bowl of Jell-O.”

But Thomas More Society argues the policy always leads to the same place: parental exclusion.

“California cannot increase the difficulty and complexity of its policies to insulate itself from constitutional liability,” Jonna added. “The injunction cuts through the state’s complicated web and gets at the core violation—excluding and deceiving parents while facilitating the social transitions of their children.”

Thomas More Society is asking the Supreme Court to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay and restore the district court’s class-wide permanent injunction, pending appeal.

“The State of California cannot unilaterally decide what is best for kids,” Jonna said. “The Supreme Court has a chance to stop this injustice and restore parental authority where it belongs.”

Read the Reply in Support of Emergency Application to Vacate Interlocutory Stay Order in Mirabelli v. Bonta, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by Thomas More Society attorneys.