Supreme Court Order in Mirabelli v. Bonta: Immediate Impacts on California Schools

Mirabelli v. Bonta, No. 25A810 (U.S. Mar. 2, 2026)

Background and Summary

This case arose from a 2023 challenge by California teachers and parents to school district policies adopted pursuant to California Attorney General and Department of Education guidance (“State Policy”) that prohibited school staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity or transition to parents without the student’s prior consent, and that required staff to use a student’s preferred name and pronouns regardless of parental direction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California (“District Court”) entered a permanent injunction (“Injunction”) prohibiting schools from “misleading parents” about their children’s gender presentation and social transitioning at school, and requiring schools to follow parental direction on names and pronouns.

The State appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where the matter is currently pending briefing and oral arguments. In its appeal to the 9th Circuit, the State requested that the Injunction be “stayed” (not in effect) while awaiting the Court’s decision on the 9th Circuit appeal. The 9th Circuit granted the State’s request for the stay, prompting plaintiffs to seek emergency relief from the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”). The SCOTUS granted that relief on March 2, 2026, and reversed the stay as to the class of Parent plaintiffs in the case, those parents who object to State Policy, or those parents who are seeking a religious exemption from the State’s challenged policy (“Protected Parents.”) As a result, the Injunction is currently in effect as to Protected Parents while this matter is argued on appeal at the 9th Circuit.

The Injunction continues to be stayed as to the class of employee plaintiffs in the matter and therefore any provisions in the Injunction as to employees are not currently in effect while the 9th Circuit considers the matter.

What is Specifically Prohibited of Schools by the Injunction?

The Injunction provides relief to Protected Parents by prohibiting the following:

1. 1. Schools are prohibited from “misleading” any Protected Parent about their child’s gender presentation at school, whether by: (i) directly lying to the parent; (ii) preventing the parent from accessing educational records of the child; or (iii) using a different set of preferred pronouns/names when speaking with the parents than is being used at school;
   2. Schools are prohibited from using a name or pronoun to refer to that child that do not match the child’s legal name and natal pronouns, where a Protected Parent has communicated their objection to such use.

What is required of the State by the Injunction?

1. 1. The State must provide notice of the Injunction to all LEA’s. That notice was provided on March 4, 2026.
   2. The State must include in a prominent place in PRISM training materials, and in any other state-created or approved instruction on the gender-related rights of student and faculty, the following statement:
      “Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.”

What This Means for Your Charter School Now

Any school policy that contradicts the above prohibitions should not be enforced as to Protected Parents. Schools may wish to consider updating their policies to reflect the Injunction. Schools should additionally inform employees of the prohibitions set forth in the Injunction.

It is important to note that State law prohibition against discrimination of any student based upon their gender, gender identity, or gender expression continues to be in full force and effect. Further, the right of a student to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with their gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records, continues in effect and is unchanged by the SCOTUS ruling. Federal law allowing parents/guardians absolute access to their child’s student record remains unchanged. As a result, we have consistently recommended that schools communicate with students as to the right of parents to view the student’s record. Lastly, child abuse and neglect reporting laws establishing mandated reporting requirements remain unchanged. As such, any mandated reporter reasonably suspecting child abuse or neglect continues to have a mandated reporting duty.

Ongoing Litigation Will Lead to Further Guidance and Policy Change

As the underlying litigation is ongoing in the 9th Circuit, guidance will continue to evolve as this matter and other similar matters work through the federal courts. We are monitoring these developments closely.

###

Download Legal Alert

If you have questions about how your current policies and practices align with the Injunction, or would like assistance with revisions, please contact: