Controversial school policies hiding students’ gender transitions from parents remains a ripe issue the Supreme Court should take up, activists argue, despite the justices already handing parents a win in an emergency docket case on the matter earlier this month.
The Supreme Court’s emergency docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta gave temporary relief to parents in California over the state’s policy of hiding their children’s gender transitions at school, but the Supreme Court could soon take up the issue on its merits docket in the next term. The Supreme Court has two petitions it is considering for its merits docket that would directly address the troubles.
One of the cases, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, was brought by Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri, who say officials at their daughter’s Massachusetts school secretly referred to her as a male during school hours and actively concealed the middle-school girl’s use of a male name, male pronouns, and male bathroom facilities from her parents. The school policies at the heart of the case meant staff at their daughter’s middle school were told to intentionally hide the male name they had been referring to her by during school hours from her parents.
John Bursch, senior counsel for the conservative law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a letter to the Supreme Court in the docket for their petition in the Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, urging the justices to hear their case in light of the Mirabelli emergency docket ruling.
“On March 2, 2026, this Court provided important guidance in its per curiam decision on the emergency docket in Mirabelli v. Bonta,” Bursch wrote in his to the high court. “But Mirabelli was preliminary, and it remains important for the Court to resolve the important issues presented by the petition here more fully and finally.”
In the per curiam opinion in Mirabelli, a 6-3 majority on the high court pointed to their 2025 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which upheld parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBT materials at school and found that not permitting such an option violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The justices sided with the parents suing over the California policy of concealing children’s gender transitions, which the school facilitates, from parents.
“Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,’” the Supreme Court order in Mirabelli said. “The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”
The emergency ruling found that the parents are likely to succeed in their constitutional challenge of California’s public school policy, but because that ruling came via the emergency docket, it has not settled the issue, Bursch said in his letter. He pointed to court filings in which California officials argued that the emergency order did “not finally resolve any of the issues” in the case, and that it was a preliminary finding, as reason for the justices to take up the case for full merits docket scrutiny.
“In sum, this case continues to present an ideal merits vehicle to resolve the issue presented, and the petition should be granted,” Bursch added.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the petition in the Foote case, where parents claim middle school officials in Massachusetts secretly gender-transitioned their daughter during school hours and actively hid her use of a different name, pronouns, and bathroom facilities from her parents, for discussion in closed door conferences several times dating back to November 2025.
The justices again scheduled the case for discussion at Friday’s closed door conference, meaning a decision on whether they will take up the case could come as soon as Monday, or the case could be scheduled for additional discussion at the high court’s conference next week.
The other petition the justices are considering regarding school policies that hide gender transitions from parents is in the case Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County. The Littlejohn case involves the parents of a 13-year-old daughter for whom they say a Florida school devised a secret “gender support” plan and advised staff not to inform the parents about it.
The justices have pushed consideration of the petition off the conference schedule several times since December, again rescheduling consideration off of Friday’s conference in favor of a future conference. A decision on the case’s fate is not expected until April at the earliest.
Bursch told the Washington Examiner earlier this year that the policies allowing for “secret social transitions at public schools” are the “most critical issue” he hopes the Supreme Court addresses regarding transgender policies across the country.
“That can cause incredible harm to those young people, and parents have a right to know when that’s happening and to not have the schools interfere in the mental health treatment that they’re giving their children,” Bursch said.
The Supreme Court ruled last year in United States v. Skrmetti that states can ban hormone drugs and breast and genital surgeries for children, finding that such bans do not violate the rights of minors.
SUPREME COURT HANDS CALIFORNIA PARENTS WIN OVER SECRET GENDER TRANSITION POLICY
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a pair of pivotal cases involving LGBT issues at school earlier this year, with the two cases about laws limiting women’s sports to biological women. The high court is expected to issue a ruling in those two cases by the end of June.
If the Supreme Court opts to take up either the Foote or Littlejohn cases, it would likely be for the next term, meaning arguments would be scheduled sometime between October 2026 and April 2027.
