Washington, D.C. – In a historic and groundbreaking ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted the Thomas More Society’s emergency application in Mirabelli v. Bonta, holding that secret gender transition policies in schools violate the religious liberty and due process rights of parents. The ruling restores the class action injunction that Thomas More Society had secured against the State of California for parents across the state who object to the state’s directives requiring schools to conceal children’s gender transitions from their own parents, facilitate those transitions without parental knowledge or consent, and compel teachers to actively deceive families.

The landmark 6-3 decision is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation. The Court found that California’s secret transition regime likely violates parents’ rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that the state “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back. The Court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country.”

Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society, added, “No more can bureaucrats secretly facilitate a child’s gender transition while shutting out parents. California built a wall of secrecy between parents and their own children, and the Supreme Court just tore it down. This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents’ rights to raise their children as they see fit for years to come.”

On the First Amendment, the Court declared that California’s “unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition” is an even greater intrusion on parents’ rights than the government actions struck down in last year’s Mahmoud v. Taylor. The Court’s forceful reaffirmation of substantive due process sets a landmark precedent for parental rights nationwide, holding that parents, not the state, hold primary authority over “the upbringing and education of children,” including the right not to be “shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”

The Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to dismantle the class certification, finding that the parents protected by the injunction “very likely have standing” and that “class certification was likely proper.” This precedent-setting holding ensures that the injunction protects not just the named plaintiffs but entire classes of California parents—effectively shielding teachers as well, since the class-wide parental victory prohibits the very policies that teachers were being compelled to enforce.

The ruling reinstates U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s December 2025 decision on behalf of statewide class of parents, finding California’s secret gender transition regime unconstitutional.

Alongside Jonna and Breen, on the petition are Jeff Trissell, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Attorney at LiMandri & Jonna LLP; Michael McHale, Senior Counsel at Thomas More Society; and Christopher Galiardo, Staff Counsel at Thomas More Society.