CaliforniaFeaturedFirst AmendmentLGBTNewsPublic schoolsreligionReligious freedomSupreme CourtTransgenderU.S. News

SCOTUS Hands Devastating Defeat to Teachers Who Want to Trans Children in Their Care

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in favor of a group of California parents who sued the state over school policies that prevent teachers from disclosing whether their children change their names or pronouns at school.

While the ruling is not definitive, as SCOTUSblog noted, the seven-page order reinstates a ruling by a federal district court which bars schools from “misleading parents about their children’s gender presentation.”

Mirabelli v. Bonta, which began in 2023, involved two teachers who sued their school district over their policies regarding respecting a child’s chosen gender. Parents also joined the lawsuit, saying that their children began identifying as transgender at school with the blessing of school officials.

While a federal district court ruled in their favor, California appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit set that aside until a higher court ruled, leading the challengers to ask for the Supreme Court to enforce the lower court’s ruling.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in court filings that the judge in the lower court had insisted upon “instant, dramatic changes” to school policy, according to The Hill.

“For many students, the consequences of compelling the disclosure of confidential information about their gender identity would be irreversible,” Bonta said in filings.

“The court of appeals acted responsibly, and equitably, in avoiding that harm before it has the opportunity to consider full briefing and argument.”

In the opinion, the court ruled that the teachers and parents were likely to succeed on religious freedom merit.

“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. California’s policies violate those beliefs,” the court said in the unsigned ruling.

“The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy,” the justices added.

“But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

The opinion, signed by at least five of the six conservative justices on the court (Justice Neil Gorsuch did not publicly disclose his vote) said that the school’s policies would be subject to so-called “strict scrutiny” — the toughest test of constitutionality, inasmuch as it deals with a fundamental right guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Related:

Parents Get Enormous Payout After School Forces Kids to Read LGBT Books

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the decision to deal with the case on the Supreme Court’s interim docket as opposed to the regular one.

Kagan said that the ruling “shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction” and said justices had received “scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute.”

Kagan added that the facts of the case mean it “cries out for reflection and explanation.”

“The Court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly,” Kagan said.

She also noted that a very similar case was being considered for review by the court.

“Why not, then, just grant” the review, she wrote, “and decide it this coming fall?” The dissent was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In a four-page concurrence written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, conservative justices refuted Kagan’s arguments and said that the judgment “is not a sign of the Court’s ‘impatience’ to reach the merits” but instead “reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents… parents will be excluded — perhaps for years — from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing.”

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One and football (of both American and world varieties).

Birthplace

Morristown, New Jersey

Education

Catholic University of America

Languages Spoken

English, Spanish

Topics of Expertise

American Politics, World Politics, Culture

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.



Source link

Related Posts

1 of 1,661