Staff Reports
A big legal push just landed in the Ninth Circuit. A coalition led by the Thomas More Society announced that 12 friend‑of‑the‑court briefs were filed urging the court to affirm a federal judge’s injunction that blocks California’s so‑called “parental exclusion” school rules. In plain English: dozens of states, lawmakers, doctors and advocacy groups want courts to make sure parents are told when public schools quietly change a child’s gender status at school.
The legal move: 12 amicus briefs press the Ninth Circuit
This is not idle press release theater. The filings target Mirabelli v. Bonta, the appeal of a district‑court ruling that found parental‑exclusion policies unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction. The Ninth Circuit had initially stayed that injunction, but the Supreme Court stepped in and vacated the stay, sending the injunction back into force. Now the appeal is being briefed again and these 12 amicus briefs are meant to push the Ninth Circuit to finish what the lower court and the Supreme Court started.
Why parental rights matter — and why California’s secrecy is a problem
Parents should be first in line to know about major changes in a child’s life. That is not a partisan slogan, it is a basic constitutional idea most Americans understand: families, not bureaucrats, raise children. California’s guidance that schools can hide a student’s social transition unless a parent asks for the information flips that idea on its head. The coalition filing the briefs argues this secrecy infringes on long‑recognized parental liberties and risks leaving parents out of decisions that matter.
Who signed on — and who is arguing the other side
The briefs are a broad conservative and civic coalition: an amicus from 17 states led by state attorneys general, five U.S. Senators including Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Kevin Cramer, Roger Marshall and Jim Banks, plus groups such as the Becket Fund, Manhattan Institute, Concerned Women for America, Moms for Liberty and several clinicians and scholars. On the other side, national civil‑rights groups like Lambda Legal and the ACLU have also filed briefs defending respondents and the policies California supports. That contrast shows the case is now a national test of parental rights, medical judgement, and school authority.
What to watch next — and why conservatives should pay attention
Briefing is ongoing in the Ninth Circuit and more filings or scheduling orders are likely. The court could set oral argument, issue a decision that affirms the injunction, or send the case in different directions — each outcome will ripple across other districts and state policies. Conservatives who care about families and local control should watch this closely: this is where legal precedent is being made, and if parents can’t insist on basic notice from schools, the next step is more surprises in the classroom. Courts should protect parental rights, not let bureaucrats keep parents in the dark — and these amicus briefs are the legal equivalent of turning on the lights.
