Attorneys Seek High Court Stay of Calif. Gender Secrecy Law

Attorneys representing California parents and teachers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately block enforcement of the state’s school "gender secrecy" policies, arguing they unlawfully require schools to withhold crucial information from parents about their children.

The emergency application, filed Thursday by the Thomas More Society in Mirabelli v. Bonta, asked the court to vacate a Monday order from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that temporarily stayed a federal district judge’s class-wide permanent injunction against the policies.

The Ninth Circuit’s order did not rule on the merits of the case. Instead, it froze enforcement of the injunction while the appeal proceeds, allowing California’s confidentiality rules to resume statewide.

"Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm," Paul M. Jonna, special counsel for the Thomas More Society and partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP., said in a statement. "That’s why we’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene immediately.

"The state is inserting itself unconstitutionally between parents and children, forcing schools to deceive families, and punishing teachers who tell the truth."

In December, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that California’s policies violated parents’ constitutional rights and issued a class-wide injunction covering parents who objected to the policies and public-school employees with constitutional or religious objections.

Benitez barred state officials from enforcing any law or policy that:

— Permits or requires school employees to mislead parents about a child’s gender presentation.

— Allows use of names or pronouns inconsistent with a child’s legal sex over parental objection.

— Prevents teachers from truthfully informing parents when a student expresses gender incongruence.

The injunction also required California to notify educators that parents have a federal constitutional right to be informed and that teachers have a corresponding right to provide accurate information.

The Ninth Circuit granted the state’s request for a stay, citing concerns that the injunction was overly broad, that class certification might have been improper, and that the district court did not clearly identify which specific state policies were unconstitutional.

The panel also said California law does not categorically forbid disclosure to parents in all circumstances.

Attorneys for the parents and teachers argued the stay has caused immediate harm.

In their filing, they cited cases in which parents said they were kept unaware that schools were treating their children as the opposite sex for extended periods, including one instance in which parents learned of the situation only after a suicide attempt.

Teachers, the filing stated, are again being required to use one set of names and pronouns at school and another when communicating with parents.

The emergency application asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the injunction while the appeal continues or, alternatively, to treat the request as a petition for certiorari before judgment, citing the issue’s national importance and growing conflict among lower courts.

"The Constitution does not allow the state to replace parents or conscript teachers into deception," Jonna said. "The Supreme Court must act now."

The filing argued California’s policies violate substantive due process and religious free-exercise rights, relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor and earlier precedent recognizing parents’ authority over their children’s upbringing, education, and medical care.

Attorneys said California’s reliance on student privacy improperly elevates state law above federal constitutional rights and forces parents out of decisions with serious mental-health and developmental consequences.

The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will act on the emergency request.

Newsmax reached out to the office of Democrat California Attorney General Rob Bonta for comment.

In an emailed statement to Newsmax on Monday following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, Bonta’s office said, "We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit has agreed we are likely to succeed on appeal in arguing that the district court’s injunction is unnecessarily vague, far more sweeping than necessary to remedy the alleged harms, reliant on faulty readings of the policies at issue, and contrary to longstanding principles of constitutional law.

"The stay protects vulnerable students and avoids confusion for teachers and schools while we appeal the district court’s decision. We look forward to continuing to make our case in court."