SCOTUS Sides With California Parents In School Transgender Dispute
The Supreme Court on Monday evening granted a request from a group of parents in California to reinstate a ruling by a federal district court prohibiting schools in the state from “misleading parents about their children’s gender presentation.” In addition, the ruling requires schools to follow parents’ instructions regarding the names and pronouns that children use there.
In a detailed seven-page ruling, the majority clarified that the parents were likely to succeed in their argument that California’s policies infringe upon their right to freely practice their religion and their right to guide the upbringing and education of their children.
Two of the court’s left-wing justices, Elena Kagan, joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the court’s ruling, arguing that Monday’s ruling “shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction.”
The dispute originated in 2023, when two teachers filed a lawsuit against the school district seeking an exemption from its policies on gender and pronouns. They were later joined by parents of children who either socially transitioned at school or believed their children had done so.
After the district court ruled in favor of the challengers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit temporarily suspended that ruling while the state appealed the decision. The challengers then escalated the case to the Supreme Court, asking the justices for intervention.
In a nuanced decision on Monday night, the majority ruled in favor of the parents but rejected the teachers’ request. The majority explained that the parents were likely to succeed in their claim that the state’s policies interfere with their religious freedom.
The majority wrote that the policies are subject to the most stringent constitutional test, which is known as strict scrutiny, because “they substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.’”
The policies can’t pass that test, the majority noted further, regardless of the state’s claim that the “policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy” because they “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”
Moreover, the majority wrote, parents have long had “primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,” including “the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”
In a seven-page dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the court’s decision to resolve the case using the interim docket. She claimed that the high court “receive[d] scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute” and then, without having any oral argument, “grant[ed] relief by means of a terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve the dispute.”
Kagan further wrote that the court could resolve the issue at the center of this case in “the regular way, on our merits docket.” She pointed out that the court has been revisiting a petition for review in a similar case repeatedly since November.
“Why not, then, just grant” review in that case, she asked, “and decide it this coming fall?”
“Our processes are, in short, the hallmark of judicial probity, and alike its guarantor. There was no reason to abandon them here,” she concluded.
In a four-page concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, addressed and countered Justice Kagan’s criticism.
Barrett argued the majority’s ruling that “the parents are likely to succeed on the merits” is a “preliminary” one. She then said that the interim relief decision “is not a sign of the Court’s ‘impatience’ to reach the merits,” but rather “reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents.”
If the 9th Circuit’s order is not lifted, she added, “parents will be excluded—perhaps for years—from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing.”
Trump Warns Iran of ‘Total Obliteration’ if They Try To Harm Him HH
President Donald Trump warned Iran that continued assassination threats made by leaders in Tehran would be met with the country getting “blown up” and “total obliteration.”
“Well, they shouldn’t be doing it but I’ve left notification,” Trump said. “Anything ever happens, we’re going to blow the whole — the whole country’s going to get blown up.”
Advertisement
Biden-era Intelligence officials briefed Trump about the alleged threats against him during his presidential campaign in 2024. Former Attorney General Merrick Garland said the plot was retaliation for the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani by the U.S. in 2020, during Trump’s first administration.
Despite being briefed by his administration, Trump on Tuesday said President Biden “should have said something” on the matter, adding that presidents should defend each other on such matters.
“But I have very firm instructions,” Trump continued. “Anything happens, they’re going to wipe them off the face of this earth.”
Advertisement
Trump also spoke about the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran in Geneva.
“What are you expecting from these Iran talks in Geneva?” a reporter asked Trump aboard Air Force One.
Advertisement
“So, I’ll be involved in those talks indirectly, and they’ll be very important. We’ll see what can happen. Typically, Iran’s a very tough negotiator; they’re good negotiators — or bad negotiators. I would say they’re bad negotiators because we could have had a deal instead of sending the B2s to knock out their nuclear potential. We had to send the B2s. I hope they’re going to be more reasonable. They want to make a deal,” Trump said.
“Have you been told that a deal is next to impossible?” the reporter followed up.
Trump replied, “No. I think they want to make a deal. I don’t think they want the consequences of not making a deal. They want to make a deal.”
WATCH:
Trump previously said that he instructed officials to destroy Iran if they killed him.
The president said this after signing an executive order right after taking office that gave him all the tools he needed to talk to Iran’s government and put as much pressure on Tehran as possible.
“They haven’t done that and that would be a terrible thing for them to do,” Trump said at the time. “Not because of me — if they did that, they would be obliterated. That would be the end. I’ve left instructions, if they do it, they get obliterated, there won’t be anything left. And, they shouldn’t be able to do it.”
Trump warned last week that the United States could send additional warships toward Iran if ongoing diplomatic negotiations fail to produce a deal, signaling that military pressure could increase as talks over Tehran’s nuclear program stall.
In remarks to Axios, Trump said the administration is considering deploying a second aircraft carrier strike group to the region in addition to the USS Abraham Lincoln and 9 additional warships already positioned near Iran, though he expressed hope that a diplomatic agreement can still be reached.
“Either we will make a deal or we will have to do something very tough like last time,” the president told Axios on Tuesday, a reference to the bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites in June.
“Last time they didn’t believe I would do it. They overplayed their hand,” Trump added. “We have an armada that is heading there and another one might be going.”
The president emphasized that the United States is seeking to persuade Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions, halt the development of its ballistic missile program, and end support for militant proxy groups. Iranian officials have so far resisted expanding negotiations beyond nuclear-related issues.
He described the nuclear issue as a “matter of course” part of any negotiation, but also insisted that an agreement with Iran must also address Tehran’s ballistic missile stockpiles, per Axios.
Trump said the US “can make a great deal with Iran,” and Tehran “very much wants to make a deal.”
Trump’s comments came ahead of a planned visit to Washington, D.C. by Benjamin Netanyahu, who is expected to press for a tougher U.S. stance and broader terms for any Iran deal that would include constraints on Tehran’s missile capabilities and regional activities.
Before heading to DC, the Israeli leader previewed some of what he and Trump were going to discuss.
“I will present to the president our understanding of the principles of the negotiations (with Iran) – the essential principles that are important not only to Israel – but to everyone who wants peace and security in the Middle East,” Netanyahu told reporters, per the New York Post.
The administration has already bolstered its military presence in the Middle East, with multiple warships and aircraft deployed as a means of deterrence and leverage.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
