\n
![](\"https:\/\/media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com\/image\/upload\/t_fit_1500w\/rockcms\/2026-01\/260123-scotus-trans-ww-1416-3751e4.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON \u2014 The Supreme Court<\/a> on Monday <\/strong>barred California from enforcing state rules that restrict when schools can notify parents about students who come out as transgender<\/a> and requires teachers to use children’s preferred pronouns.<\/p>\n The court, on a 6-3 vote on ideological lines, allowed a federal judge\u2019s ruling<\/a> in favor of parents who oppose the policy on religious grounds to go into effect. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had put the judge\u2019s decision on hold pending further litigation.<\/p>\n The court’s ruling focused on the parents’ claim that their rights under the free exercise clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated.<\/p>\n The court did not grant a similar request made by teachers who object to the policy.<\/p>\n “We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim,” the court said in an unsigned opinion.<\/p>\n “The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court added.<\/p>\n Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.<\/p>\n Kagan criticized the majority for issuing a ruling without hearing oral arguments and spending more time to address a novel legal question. The court’s handling of such emergency requests via what is known as the “shadow docket” has received close scrutiny<\/a>, especially in the context of decisions throughout 2025 in favor of the Trump administration.<\/p>\n “The Court receives scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute. It does not hold oral argument or deliberate in conference, as regular procedures dictate. It considers the request on a short fuse\u2014a matter of weeks. And then the Court grants relief by means of a terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve the dispute,” she wrote.<\/p>\n The challengers say that various policies, including guidance documents issued by the state\u2019s Education Department in 2016 and the attorney general\u2019s office in 2024, violate their right to guide their children’s education.<\/p>\n They cite, in part, the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling last year<\/a> in favor of religious parents who objected to the approval of LGBTQ-themed books for use in elementary school classrooms.<\/p>\n \u201cCalifornia is requiring public schools to hide children\u2019s expressed transgender status at school from their own parents \u2014 including religious parents \u2014 and to actively facilitate those children\u2019s \u2018social transition\u2019 over their parents\u2019 express objections,\u201d lawyers for the challengers wrote.<\/p>\n Lawyers for the state argue in response that the policies are not as broad as the plaintiffs suggest and that the district judge\u2019s ruling was far more sweeping than necessary.<\/p>\n \u201cCurrently, under California\u2019s laws and constitutional provisions on privacy and antidiscrimination, schools may balance parental interests with students\u2019 particular needs and circumstances, such as the risk of harm upon disclosure of the student\u2019s gender identity without student consent,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n The rules \u201callow disclosure to parents in some circumstances and limit disclosure in others,\u201d the lawyers said.<\/p>\n