On 2 March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam order in Mirabelli v. Bonta (No. 25A810) vacating the Ninth Circuit’s stay as to the parent plaintiffs. The Court said objecting parents are likely to succeed under Free Exercise (Mahmoud/Yoder) and under the Due Process parental-rights line (Meyer/Pierce/Parham). It denied relief as to teacher plaintiffs. Appeal on the merits continues. This is interim emergency-docket relief — not a final merits judgment wiping every California privacy policy.

Interim means interim: the stay is lifted for objecting parents; the nationwide “secrecy ban” slogan is not what the order says.
Citizen impact: California parents who object to school social transition (name/pronouns) without notice now have Supreme Court emergency-docket language on their side in this case posture. Teachers’ parallel claims were denied here. Statewide statutes such as AB 1955 remain in force except where separately enjoined for named plaintiffs — see companion coverage.

What parents alleged

Parent plaintiffs challenged California policies that, as pleaded, barred disclosing a student’s gender transitioning at school without student consent and required preferred names/pronouns regardless of parental wishes — the “classroom secrecy” fight. The per curiam recounts documented parent experiences (including the Poe family’s account of learning of a school presentation after their daughter’s suicide attempt and hospitalization). Suicide-causation claims beyond what the court record states are refused below.

What the Court did — and did not do

Official PDF and LII text: vacatur of the Ninth Circuit stay as to parents; denial as to teachers; Barrett concurrence; Kagan/Jackson dissent criticizing emergency-docket process and cautioning against expanding substantive due process this way. Education Week and San Diego Union-Tribune coverage the same day track the Escondido-rooted litigation and statewide policy stakes.

Contested: California’s AG and education defendants argue student safety, privacy, and anti-outing. The Ninth Circuit had stayed the district injunction citing class-certification and merits doubts. The dissent’s process critique is part of the public record — report it.

Pair with AB 1955 / Foote

AB 1955 (SAFETY Act) still operates statewide with only a limited Ninth Circuit injunction for named parent plaintiffs (June 2026). Separately, Foote v. Ludlow (First Circuit; SCOTUS cert denied April 2026) left a parental-secrecy loss intact in Massachusetts — the national map is not one-way.

Bottom line

Objecting California parents got a major interim SCOTUS win on gender-secrecy policies. Treat slogans of a “final nationwide ban” as overclaim. Read the PDF.