Supreme Court Blows Up Scheme To Secretly Push Transgenderism On Kids In School

In what is being described as a "watershed moment for parental rights," the Supreme Court has blown up, for now, a state's scheme to secretly push trangenderism on children in school, and hide the activism from parents who are responsible for the upbringing of those same children.

"The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent's back," explained Paul Jonna, a lawyer at the Thomas More Society.

"The court's landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country," Jonna said.

The Supreme Court's action was to affirm an injunction against the state's gender secrecy agenda, which was intended by officials in the leftist state to require school staff hide any student's "transgender identity" from parents.

The court granted an emergency appeal filed on behalf of Catholic parents, and the result is that a state law barring parental notification cannot be applied.

Left standing was the ruling from District Court Judge Roger Benitez, who said, "The attorney general on behalf of the state of California says plaintiffs' lawsuit is 'properly understood as seeking a federal constitutional exemption from the California constitutional right to privacy, as applied to gender identity in the school context.' ... But the attorney general gets it upside down. Plaintiffs do not ask the state to magnanimously permit a sort of federal constitutional exemption. What plaintiffs seek is to force the state to respect their enduring federal constitutional rights as citizens of the United States."

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley explained, of the ruling, "While it only restores the injunction during the pendency of the litigation below, it reflects a clear notion of the likelihood to prevail on the merits."

The lawsuit at hand involved teachers who sued because they expected to be punished if they refused to lie about a student's gender identity. Parents joined the action involving the Escondido Union School District's agenda.

Mark Rienzi of Becket, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the fight, said, "Parents' fundamental right to raise their children according to their faith doesn't stop at the schoolhouse door. California tried cutting parents out of their children's lives while forcing teachers to hide the school's behavior from parents. We're glad the court stepped in to block this anti-family, anti-American policy."

The California Department of Education pushed the agenda, issuing "guidance" that told public schools to treat a child as whatever gender the child wanted and hide that from parents, "even lying to the parents if necessary."

As a result, parents across the state have been left in the dark about schools' actively indoctrinating their children in transgenderism, even facilitating transitions, even though by the science, changing from male to female or vice versa isn't possible.

Becket explained recent polling shows a majority nationwide agrees with the families, with 73% saying parents are the primary educators of their children.

"This is a victory for parental rights, religious freedom, and common sense," Rienzi said, "Once again, the Supreme Court has made clear that parents do not take a backseat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids, especially not government bureaucrats."

Turley noted the Supreme Court's precedent on the issue, from 1925, said, "the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

It was the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had put the district judge's ruling on hold, a decision now reversed by the Supreme Court.

"It is time for the court to back up that constitutional right with clear and robust protections," Turley said.

The high court said the parents "who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim."

The trigger was a young girl indoctrinated by school teachings into transgenderism. Her parents only found out about the agenda when she tried to commit suicide.

Previously, in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court said parents have the right to opt their children out of LGBTQ+ indoctrination, and the ruling said California was "substantially" interfering with parental rights to guide the religious development of their children.

Originally published at WND News Center