Parents’ rights to raise their children how they see fit are at the heart of a Supreme Court decision published Monday.
The decision stems from a case filed by two Escondido teachers. They claim their district’s policy preventing them from disclosing their students’ gender identity infringes on their First Amendment rights. A group of parents also joined the lawsuit, saying these policies undermine their ability to raise their children according to their beliefs.
In December, a San Diego federal judge, Roger Benitez, sided with them. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed that decision pending its review of the case. The plaintiffs then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court seeking to have the lower courts’ decision reinstated. Monday, a majority of the justices agreed and lifted the injunction for the parents, but not the teachers.
“That’s why this was such a very, very interesting and very important ruling,” legal analyst Dan Eaton said.
The Supreme Court has generally given broad deference to parents under the Fourteenth Amendment. According to Eaton, the ruling says school officials can’t mislead parents about their children’s gender.
“Because if withholding information about a child’s transitioning and their use of pronouns inconsistent with their birth-assigned gender would in some way mislead the parents, the teachers are going to have to disclose that information,” he said.
Because the decision did not lift the injunction for teachers, it is creating confusion over what it means for the SAFETY Act. The law bars school districts from requiring teachers to notify parents if their students choose to go by a new pronoun at school.
“With respect to our bill, we’re actually not sure, because there’s a lot of ambiguity in the ruling,” Assemblymember Chris Ward, the author of the bill, said.
He believes the law remains in effect but is “deeply concerned about what this conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court is doing generally for national policies, but also specific to these threats on the LGBTQ community.”
He added, “This was never about secrecy. It was about ensuring that educators aren’t becoming agents of compulsory disclosure.”
The Thomas More Society praised the ruling, saying it protects children and families. The group helped to mount the legal challenge in this case. But the CFT, a statewide educators’ union, opposes the ruling, saying it creates a forced-outing policy that puts students’ safety at risk.
“What we’re seeing is a continuing and ongoing attack and silencing of the LGBT+ community, and we believe that this is harmful for our students and our schools,” CFT president Jeff Freitas said.
The Supreme Court’s decision did not weigh the merits of the case, which is still under review at the 9th Circuit. The review could sometimes take months or even years, Eaton said, which was part of the reason for the Supreme Court’s emergency decision.
Regardless of how the 9th Circuit decides, Eaton said the issue will ultimately come back to the Supreme Court.