When Schools Must Choose Between Parents and Students

A seventh-grader confides in their teacher: "I'm transgender, but please don't tell my parents. They'll kick me out." Should that teacher be legally required to betray the student's trust?

This scenario sits at the heart of Mirabelli v. Bonta, a case currently before the Supreme Court that could fundamentally reshape American public education. The plaintiffs argue that California's law protecting student privacy violates parents' constitutional rights, demanding that teachers become informants against their own students.

The Constitutional Collision

The Mirabelli case challenges California's policy that school employees "shall not be required to disclose any information related to a pupil's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression" without the student's consent. The plaintiffs claim this violates parents' fundamental right to control their children's upbringing.

But this isn't an isolated legal challenge. The Court is simultaneously considering Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, a nearly identical case. Justice Samuel Alito has already signaled his frustration that lower courts aren't adequately addressing "whether a school district violates parents' fundamental rights" when they allow transgender students to transition socially.

The Federalist Society, the influential conservative legal organization with deep ties to Republican justices, recently hosted a debate on whether "parents have a constitutional right to know and consent to public school facilitation of their children's gender-identity transition." The question has clearly become a priority for the conservative legal movement.

The Mahmoud Precedent Changes Everything

Until recently, federal courts maintained a hands-off approach to public school operations, recognizing that micromanagement would make schools impossible to run. Justice Robert Jackson warned in 1948 that with "256 separate and substantial religious bodies" in America, trying to accommodate every religious objection would "leave public education in shreds."

That era ended abruptly last June with Mahmoud v. Taylor. The Supreme Court's Republican majority ruled that parents objecting to books with LGBTQ+ characters must be notified in advance and given opt-out rights for their children. The decision's broad language suggests any parent with religious objections to any lesson deserves similar accommodation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent proved prophetic, warning that schools "cannot afford to engage in costly litigation over opt-out rights" and would be forced to "censor their curricula" preemptively. The practical result: a nationwide "Don't Say Gay" regime as schools remove anything that might trigger religious objections.

Mahmoud fundamentally shifted judicial philosophy from protecting institutional function to enforcing individual religious preferences, no matter the cost to public education.

When Children's Rights Collide with Parental Authority

The Mirabelli plaintiffs face a challenge that Mahmoud didn't: what happens when students themselves hold different religious views than their parents?

University of Chicago law professor Mary Anne Case highlighted the logical extremes during a Federalist Society debate. If schools must inform parents about gender identity, what about dietary choices? Must teachers report when a child from a kosher household eats bacon? Should schools monitor whether Muslim students remove their hijabs?

More troubling: what if a student explicitly fears parental abuse? The Constitution's Free Exercise Clause protects everyone's religious liberty - including children who hold beliefs different from their parents. When a transgender student asks teachers to respect their privacy, they're asserting their own right to religious self-determination.

The Mirabelli plaintiffs essentially argue that parental religious rights should trump children's religious rights. Their brief even quotes Justice Clarence Thomas's vision of "total parental control over children's lives extended into the schools."

The Death of Educational Federalism

Historically, America managed disagreements over school values through democratic processes - state legislatures and local school boards. A rural Arkansas school might teach different books than one in Manhattan, and that pluralism was considered healthy.

The Supreme Court once celebrated this approach. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court declared education "perhaps the most important function of state and local governments," essential for laying "the very foundation of good citizenship." Public schools were seen as an "assimilative force" bringing together "diverse and conflicting elements in our society."

Conservative justices were traditionally even more protective of schools' nation-building role. In Ambach v. Norwick (1979), the Court's five most conservative members upheld New York's requirement that public school teachers be U.S. citizens, reasoning that schools must "inculcate fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system."

But today's conservative majority has abandoned institutional conservatism for religious movement priorities. Cases like Mirabelli seek to transfer educational control from democratically elected local officials to six Republican justices in Washington.