SCOTUS Decision On California Parental Notification Law

The SCOTUS ruled in favor of parental notification in California – Image courtesy of Vecteezy.com.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently handed down a decision that reinstated an injunction for a California law that banned notification to parents concerning a student’s gender identity. Notification is required even if the student does not consent. Let’s take a look.

California AB 1955

The California law at the center of the parental‑notification controversy is Assembly Bill 1955 (AB 1955), formally titled the “Support Academic Futures and Equality for Today’s Youth (SAFETY) Act.” AB 1955, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 15, 2024, and effective January 1, 2025, created a statewide ban on school district policies that require notifying parents when a student:

Asks to use a different name or pronouns.
Identifies as a gender different from the gender on their school records.
Changes gender expression at school.

The law prohibited teachers and staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to anyone—including parents—without the student’s consent. The California Legislature framed AB 1955 as a student‑privacy and safety measure, emphasizing:

Schools should not “out” students before they are ready.
Students should control when and how they “come out.”
Forced disclosure can be harmful in unsupportive homes.

Parents and teachers challenged the law in Mirabelli v. Bonta/Olson. A federal district court issued an injunction stating that parents have a constitutional right to be informed if their child expresses gender confusion at school.

The SCOTUS Decision

The Supreme Court issued a temporary emergency ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta that vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay and reinstated the district court’s injunction against California’s nondisclosure policies. It did not strike down the law outright, but it blocked enforcement of the policies for now. The decision did three specific things:

Vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay: The Ninth Circuit had paused the district court’s injunction. The Supreme Court reversed that pause as to the parent plaintiffs, allowing the injunction to resume. In other words, one court blocked the law, and another removed the block. SCOTUS reinstated the block.
Reinstated the district court’s injunction for parents: This means California cannot enforce its policies (and by extension AB 1955’s nondisclosure rules) against the parent class while the case proceeds. The Court found the parents are likely to succeed on their Free Exercise and Due Process claims.
Left the stay in place for teachers: The SCOTUS decision to keep the stay in place for teachers means it did not provide teachers with the same temporary protection it granted to parents. The district court’s injunction originally covered both parents and teachers, but the Supreme Court revived only the part protecting parents. The portion of the injunction that would have protected teachers is still paused.

The Catholic View

The SCOTUS reinforced an injunction requiring parents to be notified of a student’s gender identity confusion – image courtesy of Vecteezy.com.

Jesus would look at the law, its intent, and the SCOTUS decision through the lens of truthfulness, protection of the vulnerable, integrity of parental vocation, and the moral purpose of the law rather than its technical wording. The question at hand is whether the law follows God’s heart:

Does the law tell the truth or require deception? Matthew 5:37 shows us that Jesus demands truth and honesty. He pushes strongly against any law that requires deception as a condition of participation.
Does the law protect the vulnerable or expose them to harm? Matthew 18:6 and Matthew 23:4 speak to protecting children and not burdening them. While there are real situations where a child may not be safe at home, Jesus would ask whether the law’s solution (blanket nondisclosure) actually protects the vulnerable or creates secrecy without providing real safety.
Does the law honor the God‑given vocation of parents? Matthew 7:9-11 affirms parental responsibility for teaching, guiding, and forming children. Jesus consistently affirms parents as the primary stewards of a child’s formation.
Does the law serve mercy, justice, and faithfulness? Matthew 23:23 speaks to the “weightier” matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and fidelity. Jesus would ask whether the law’s broad prohibition serves mercy or whether it creates new burdens—on teachers, on parents, and on students who need connected care.