Wagner Center Part of Big Win in Supreme Court Parental Rights Case

The Wagner Faith & Freedom Center recently joined a coalition of public policy organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief before the United States Supreme Court in Mirabelli v. Bonta. The brief supported an emergency application asking the Court to vacate a Ninth Circuit order that had temporarily blocked a federal district court decision protecting the constitutional rights of parents.

The controversy arises from California public school policies allowing school officials to socially transition students at school, changing names, pronouns, or gender identity, while intentionally withholding that information from parents. Teachers and parents challenged these “parental exclusion policies,” arguing that they violate the longstanding constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing, care, and education of their children.

A federal district court in the Southern District of California agreed, concluding that the policies infringed fundamental parental rights and issuing a permanent injunction prohibiting their enforcement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, stayed that injunction pending appeal, allowing the policies to remain in effect while the appellate court reviews the case.

The plaintiffs then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The Wagner Center’s amicus brief urged the Court to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay, emphasizing that parental authority over the care and upbringing of children is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and constitutional tradition and remains a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam order partially granting the application. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay as applied to the parent plaintiffs, allowing the district court’s injunction to protect them, while declining to extend broader relief to other parties.

Importantly, the Court did not resolve the ultimate constitutional question. The case now proceeds in the Ninth Circuit for full appellate review. Still, the Court’s decision signals that the parental-rights claims presented are substantial. When the case ultimately returns to the Supreme Court after final judgment below, the Justices may be called upon to address directly whether government schools may conceal consequential decisions about a child’s identity from the very parents the Constitution recognizes as primarily responsible for their upbringing. At that time, the Court will likely confront directly whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects parental authority and limits government interference in this sphere, an issue closely related to the Court’s recent recognition that the First Amendment protects parents and educators from government policies compelling speech or restricting expression on matters of gender identity.