California’s public schools are at the center of a heated legal storm as attorneys challenge a state policy that keeps parents in the dark about their child’s gender identity.
On Thursday, January 8, 2026, attorneys from the Thomas More Society filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court to block a federal appeals court ruling that reinstated California’s controversial school gender policies. This follows a January 5, 2026, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay a lower court’s permanent injunction, allowing schools to withhold information about a student’s transgender status from parents. The policy also mandates staff to support a child’s social transition, regardless of parental objections.
The issue has ignited a fierce debate over parental rights and state overreach in education. This legal battle, originating from a 2023 class action lawsuit by two Christian teachers and joined by concerned parents in 2024, challenges a state law that critics say undermines family trust. Attorneys have also sought an en banc reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit’s stay order to push for a broader review.
According to Breitbart, critics argue that California’s approach is a dangerous overstep, placing the state between parents and their children in a way that feels more like control than care.
The lawsuit reveals heartbreaking stories, like that of “John” and “Jane Poe,” devout Catholic parents whose junior-high daughter was treated as male at school for nearly a year without their knowledge. They only learned of her transition after a tragic suicide attempt, as doctors later disclosed the situation. Even after transferring her to another school and requesting updates on her gender presentation, the school refused to comply, citing state rules.
Similarly, “John” and “Jane Doe,” also Catholic parents, discovered their daughter’s social transition began as early as fifth grade, with teachers allegedly misleading them. To this day, they receive no updates on her current gender expression at school. It’s a policy that seems to say parents are the last to know about their own kids.
“Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel for Thomas More Society and partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. Well, if harm isn’t the right word, what is, when parents are sidelined while their children navigate such profound changes?
“The state is inserting itself unconstitutionally between parents and children, forcing schools to deceive families, and punishing teachers who tell the truth,” Jonna added. If the state’s job isn’t to support families but to supplant them, one wonders what kind of precedent this sets for other deeply personal matters.
The legal fight traces back to a federal district court ruling on December 22, 2025, which issued a class-wide permanent injunction to halt these policies. That victory for plaintiffs was short-lived, as the Ninth Circuit’s recent stay order reversed the block. It’s a judicial ping-pong match with real families caught in the middle.
California’s insistence on secrecy raises questions about whether the state views parents as partners or obstacles in education. When schools are mandated to conceal such significant information, trust erodes faster than a sandcastle at high tide.
Teachers, too, are put in an impossible spot, forced to comply with a policy that may conflict with their ethics or beliefs. The original plaintiffs, two Christian educators, felt compelled to sue in 2023 over this very conflict. It’s a system that seems to penalize honesty while rewarding compliance.
For the Poe family, the emotional toll is evident as they remain excluded from critical aspects of their daughter’s school life. Unable to afford private education, their options are limited, and the state’s policy offers no compromise. It’s a bitter pill when bureaucracy trumps a parent’s plea.
The Thomas More Society’s emergency request to the Supreme Court isn’t just a legal maneuver; it’s a cry for clarity on who truly holds authority over a child’s upbringing. If the state can dictate silence on matters this personal, what’s next on the agenda of progressive overreach?
As this case unfolds, the nation watches to see if parental rights will stand firm against state mandates. California may argue it’s protecting students, but at what cost to the family unit, the very foundation of society? The Supreme Court’s decision could set a landmark precedent, one way or another.