Mirabelli v. Bonta
What’s at Stake
Whether California may enforce laws protecting transgender and questioning students from being outed to their parents by school staff without the students’ consent.
Summary
California enacted laws allowing school officials to honor a student’s request for confidentiality when that student wants to use a name or pronouns at school consistent with their gender identity. These laws aim to protect transgender and questioning students who are brave enough to come out at school but don’t yet feel ready or safe to come out to their parents.
In April 2023, a group of teachers and parents who object to these laws on religious or ideological grounds sued state officials in California to block the laws’ enforcement. In December 2025, a district court sided with the parents and teachers. The court granted their motion for summary judgment and prevented California from enforcing these laws on the grounds that they conflict with parents’ and teachers’ rights to free exercise of their religious faith, as well as parents’ due process rights. This ruling placed transgender and gender-nonconforming students across California at risk of being outed to their parents by their teachers and other school staff.
California quickly appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which allowed the laws to remain in effect while the court fully considered all the arguments and decided the case. But the parents and teachers challenging the laws sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. In March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the parents were likely to succeed on their claims and reinstated the district court’s order prohibiting California from enforcing these laws against parents while the case proceeds before the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court’s order has made schools less safe for transgender and questioning students by requiring school staff to out some students to their parents before the Ninth Circuit has had a chance to decide the case.
Public Justice joined an amicus brief filed in the Ninth Circuit by the National Center for Youth Law. The brief discusses the importance of young people choosing when to come out to their families and argues that the court must consider young people’s independent rights — including the right to self-expression at school — when those rights conflict with those of their parents.
Core Legal Questions
The core issues in this case are whether laws preventing school officials from outing transgender and questioning students to their parents violate teachers’ and parents’ constitutional rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights. The Ninth Circuit must decide whether to recognize a new constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment: the right of parents to be informed when their child uses pronouns consistent with their gender identity. If so, the court must then determine whether California has a compelling interest that justifies these laws—including protecting students’ privacy, shielding transgender and gender-nonconforming students from bullying and harassment, and fostering a safe learning environment where students can learn without fear of being outed before they are ready.
The court will also address whether allowing school employees to honor a transgender student’s request for confidentiality or use a student’s preferred name and pronouns violates parents’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion or teachers’ First Amendment rights to free speech. If these rights have been violated, the question becomes whether California’s compelling interest in maintaining a safe and supportive learning environment outweighs those rights.