supreme court

The Supreme Court’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ruling: Four Truths You Should Know

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Colorado’s law banning so-called “conversion therapy” is likely unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

In the 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held the state’s “Prohibit Conversion Therapy for A Minor” law (HB19-1129), enacted in 2019, engages in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination since it prohibited therapists from voicing certain perspectives that Colorado disfavors.

Because of its speech restrictions, the law must satisfy strict scrutiny – the highest standard of judicial review, the Supreme Court said. The lower courts had erroneously applied rational-basis review – a much lower standard – in upholding the law.

The law prohibited licensed counselors from helping minor clients struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction or sexual identity confusion. The Orwellian speech code mandated counselors speak in a specific, state-mandated way when counseling minor clients.

Counselors could only help clients embrace homosexuality or a “transgender” identity. The law prohibited counselors from helping clients, through simple talk therapy, turn away from homosexual thoughts, behaviors and identities, or resolve feelings of gender dysphoria and embrace their biological sex.

“Under our precedents, viewpoint restrictions like that are not subject to mere rational-basis review or intermediate scrutiny,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the Court’s majority. “Rather, they represent ‘an egregious form of content discrimination’ where First Amendment concerns are at their most ‘blatant.’”

The case stems from Christian Colorado counselor Kaley Chiles’ lawsuit seeking to prevent enforcement of HB19-1129 and protect her First Amendment right to speak freely in counseling conversations with minors.

“While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech,” Gorsuch added, “And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage.”

Justice Gorsuch continued,

The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.

The Court’s decision is a clear win for all Americans’ free speech rights and for minors who want to find help and hope of healing from homosexuality and transgenderism.

However, you’d never know that from reading the mainstream media’s biased coverage of the Court’s ruling.

The Associated Press claimed the decision is “the latest in a line of recent cases in which the justices have [taken] a skeptical view of LGBTQ+ rights,” opining that “conversion therapy” is a “discredited practice.”

The New York Times said Colorado’s law prohibits counselors from “trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of L.G.B.T.Q. minors.”

NBC News called the decision “a blow to LGBTQ rights” in the opening sentence of its article on the ruling. The outlet called “conversion therapy” “widely discredited” and “ineffective,” deeming it “harmful, increasing a risk of suicide among people subjected to it.”

USA Today said “conversion therapy” is “ineffective and harmful.”

For all the smoke and mirrors proffered by other outlets, here are four truthful things you should know about the Court’s ruling.

“Conversion Therapy” Doesn’t Exist

There is no “harmful” or “discredited” practice known as “conversion therapy.” As the Daily Citizen has previously noted, “No counselor or therapist ever put out a sign saying, ‘I offer conversion therapy’ or ‘I’ll convert you from gay to straight!’ There is no such clinical practice.”

“The term was invented by activists who oppose the truth that some people with same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion who don’t want to embrace those thoughts, feelings, identities or behaviors.”

The Truth: Some individuals who experience unwanted same-sex attraction or sexual identity confusion seek counselors’ help to reach their own goals and find freedom from homosexuality and transgenderism; many individuals do find lasting freedom from these struggles.

Talk Therapy is Not Harmful

As the Court recounted in its opinion, Chiles (and other Christian counselors) does not “prescribe any medicines, perform any physical treatments, or engage in any coercive or aversive practices. All Ms. Chiles offers is talk therapy.”

A 2022 study conducted by Rev. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., a research professor of sociology with the Catholic University of America, found that “sexual orientation change efforts” are not associated with causing behavioral harms – unlike what the media claims.

The Truth: Talk therapy can be helpful for individuals who want to explore their past experiences, feelings, relationships, identities and behaviors and who want to live out a biblical sexual ethic.

The Court Upheld All Americans’ Free Speech Rights

The media inexplicably and incorrectly portrayed the ruling as a “blow to LGBT rights.” But the Court did not remove any “LGBT right.” Nor did it mandate any homosexual- or transgender-identified individuals receive talk therapy.

The Court merely said minor clients who want to leave homosexuality or transgenderism can receive a counselor’s help in doing so.

The Truth: The Court upheld Americans’ right to speak freely and receive counseling as they wish.

LGBT Activists Promote Conversion Therapy

LGBT activists who oppose counselors helping clients leave transgenderism, who want to trap individuals into a lifetime of confusion over their sexual identity, are the real advocates of “conversion therapy.”

These radical activists would prefer minors receive harmful, damaging and irreversible puberty blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries, rather than explore their feelings and identities with a licensed counselor.

This is a misguided attempt to “convert” children into looking and acting like the opposite sex, rather than helping them embrace biological reality. Most children with sexual identity confusion will desist, but transgender ideology tries to convince them – and their families – that they need to somehow “become” the opposite sex.

As commentator Allie Beth Stuckey wrote, “True, damaging ‘conversion therapy’ is the kind that convinces kids that they’re the opposite gender.”

The Truth: LGBT activists are the real proponents of harmful “conversion therapy” for children with sexual identity confusion.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kaley Chiles’ favor, upholding her free speech rights and the right of all licensed counselors to help minors receive the therapy they seek.

The case now goes back down to the lower court, where Colorado’s law will likely fail to meet a strict scrutiny analysis and be found unconstitutional.

The case is Chiles v. Salazar.

Related articles and resources:

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

Counseling for Sexual Identity Concerns: A Measured, Careful, and Compassionate approach.

What Is ‘Conversion Therapy’?

Four Things You Should Know About Michigan’s Ban on Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality or Transgenderism

Elizabeth Woning Left Lesbianism for a Relationship with Christ – She Wants Others to Have that Same Freedom

New Study: Even Failed Efforts to Leave Homosexuality Are Not Harmful

New Study Shows Therapy to Leave Homosexuality Can Be Effective and Helpful

Photo from Getty Images.

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a Colorado law banning so-called conversion therapy for minors “regulates speech based on viewpoint,” violating counselors’ First Amendment rights. 

The Court’s almost-unanimous decision in Chiles v. Salazar was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offering the lone dissent. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate concurring opinion, joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 

The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a practicing Christian and licensed professional counselor who helps clients with a variety of issues – including unwanted sexual identity confusion and same-sex attractions.

But Colorado passed a ban on “conversion therapy” for minors in 2019, censoring Chiles’ speech. Therapists in Colorado were only allowed to help minors move toward homosexuality or transgenderism, even when this conflicted with their deeply held religious beliefs. 

Chiles does not impose her beliefs on clients but helps them work toward their own goals. The ban locked minors out of voluntary counseling conversations that could help them live according to their faith and embrace their bodily reality. 

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) allied attorney Barry Arrington filed a lawsuit on Chiles’behalf in 2022, fighting this unwarranted violation of her First Amendment rights.  

After a district court failed to stop Colorado’s therapy ban, Arrington and ADF attorneys appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in 2024. When that court ruled against Chiles, she appealed to the Supreme Court, and ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell presented oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court last October. 

ADF called the victory a “monumental” decision for free speech, saying, “The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that counseling conversations are speech and that states cannot silence viewpoints in the counseling room.” 

Campbell, in a statement from ADF, pointed out the damage to children from counseling censorship laws that prohibit help for those struggling with sexual identity confusion: 

Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children. 

States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies.

The ruling affects laws in 23 states, along with executive orders or regulations in four states and more than 100 municipalities, that censor talk therapy for minors with unwanted homosexuality or transgenderism. It also affects similar court cases across the country. 

In his opinion, Gorsuch noted that Colorado’s law forbade “any practice or treatment … that attempts … to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” including any effort “to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” (his emphasis). 

Chiles had argued that the prohibition applied to her use of normal, therapeutic talk therapy with clients, and it mandated speech that encouraged them toward homosexuality or transgenderism. 

Colorado argued that the law regulated “professional conduct,” not speech. But the Supreme Court rejected this, saying talk therapy “involves no physical interventions or medications, only the spoken word.” 

The opinion acknowledged the vital role of free speech in America: 

The First Amendment “envisions the United States as a rich and complex place” where all enjoy the “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.”

Gorsuch added:

This Court has long held that laws regulating speech based on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “presumptively unconstitutional.” … 

We have recognized, as well, the even greater dangers associated with regulations that discriminate based on the speaker’s point of view.

“While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech,” the Court opined.

In her lengthy 35-page dissent – longer than Gorsuch’s opinion and Kagan’s concurring opinion combined – Jackson stated that Colorado was only regulating “medical professionals and their treatment-related speech.” 

She added, “Chiles insists … she has a constitutional right to flout Colorado’s statute and the standard of care it incorporates if a client asks her to do so.” 

Jackson tried to make a distinction between “talk” and “medical treatment,” saying Chiles had the right to oppose Colorado’s law and “freely promote conversion therapy” but “she cannot practice that therapy.” 

The rest of the Court adamantly disagreed with that baseless argument. 

Gorsuch made several key points in the Court’s emphatic rejection of Jackson’s distinction between “speech” and “therapeutic “practice.” First, he wrote: 

Licensed professionals “have a host of good-faith disagreements” about the “prudence” and “ethics” of various practices in their fields. … Medical consensus, too, is not static; it evolves and always has. A prevailing standard of care may reflect what most practitioners believe today, but it cannot mark the outer boundary of what they may say tomorrow. 

Far from a test of professional consensus, the First Amendment rests instead on a simple truth: “[T]he people lose” whenever the government transforms prevailing opinion into enforced conformity.

He went on to make a statement that captures the crux of this case: 

We do not doubt that the question “how best to help minors” struggling with issues of gender identity or sexual orientation is presently a subject of “fierce public debate.” … 

But Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint. Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censoriousgovernments throughout history have believed the same.

But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an “egregious” assault on both of those commitments.

Colorado’s “censorious government” believed it had the right to stifle free speech and only allow the viewpoint of LGBT activists and their allies to reign in counseling offices. 

Kaley Chiles celebrated the freedom to work with minors and their families who want to live according to the Bible’s guidance for sexuality and relationships. She said: 

When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. I look forward to being able to help them when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies. 

Counselors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere.

The case is Chiles v. Salazar. 

If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-800-A-Family (232-6459) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor or chaplain to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

We also offer local referrals for licensed counselors who align with the mission and values of Focus on the Family.

Related articles and resources: 

Alliance Defending Freedom: Chiles v. Salazar

Daily Citizen: 

Appeals Court Permits Colorado’s Counseling Censorship Law to Stand

Can Minors Receive Counseling Help for Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction or Sexual Identity Confusion? Federal Courts Split on Local Prohibitions.

Colorado Counselor Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Free Speech Case

Colorado Lurches to the Far Left

Four Things You Should Know About Michigan’s Ban on Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality or Transgenderism

Is Therapy to Leave Homosexuality Damaging? New Review Says, ‘No Proof of Harm’

Therapy Bans Threaten Religious Freedom, Free Speech and Parental Rights

Why We Support Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality

Focus on the Family: 

Counseling for Sexual Identity Concerns: A Measured, Careful, and Compassionate approach.

Resources: Homosexuality

Transgender Resources

Understanding Homosexuality

Supreme Court Rules Street Preacher Can Challenge City’s Speech Ordinance

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a street preacher who argues a city ordinance unconstitutionally prevents him from sharing his Christian faith in public.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Olivier v. City of Brandon that Gabriel Olivier can challenge Brandon, Mississippi’s ordinance that restricts “expressive activity” – and therefore, Olivier’s evangelism – near a public amphitheater.

“This is not only a win for the right to share your faith in public, but also a win for every American’s right to have their day in court when their First Amendment rights are violated,” said Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute. Olivier is represented by First Liberty.

Olivier, an evangelical Christian, often stands outside of well-attended events and shares the gospel with as many people as he can. But the city of Brandon, Mississippi, adopted an ordinance that limits speech inside a small, designated “protest zone” that is far away from crowds, limiting his ability to communicate.

In one incident, Olivier disregarded the protest zone and moved closer to the crowds so he could reach more people. As a result, the city arrested him. He paid a $304 fine and was released, serving no prison time.

First Liberty published a video explaining more about Olivier’s story, which you can watch below:


Olivier subsequently challenged the law in federal court, alleging the city ordinance violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The district court, however, dismissed his case. The court agreed with the city’s argument that an individual previously convicted of violating a statute cannot challenge its constitutionality under federal civil rights law (§1983).

It relied on a Supreme Court decision in Heck v. Humphery that prohibits prisoners’ use of §1983 to challenge the validity of a prior conviction to obtain release from custody or monetary damages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgement.

In its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling and allowed Olivier’s suit challenging the city ordinance to proceed. The Court said its Heck precedent “has no bearing on Olivier’s suit seeking a purely prospective remedy.”

Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the Court’s opinion, said, “Olivier is seeking … ‘wholly prospective’ relief – ‘only to be free from prosecutions for future violations’ of the city ordinance.”

Olivier can “sue … to enjoin future prosecutions under the city ordinance, despite his prior conviction,” Kagan said. Otherwise, Olivier would be placed in a “dilemma” to either “flout the law and risk another prosecution, or else forego speech he believes is constitutionally protected.”

Olivier’s case will now go to trial in the district court where he will argue the ordinance violates the free speech clause.

“No American should be criminally charged for sharing their faith in public,” said Nate Kellum, senior counsel at First Liberty. “This is a wonderful day for Gabe and for the First Amendment.”

“My goal from the beginning was to be granted my rights as an American citizen under our great Constitution,” said Olivier. “Now all people with deeply held Christian religious beliefs who are called to share the good news can do so in the public arena.”

The case is Olivier v. City of Brandon.

Related articles and resources:

Supreme Court To Hear Evangelist’s Religious Freedom Case

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Case of Evangelist Banned From Sharing His Faith

Photo from Shutterstock.

Supreme Court Hears Case About Counting Ballots That Arrive After Election Day

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case on Monday challenging a Mississippi law that extends the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later. 

The ruling in Watson v. RNC could affect 14 states, three territories and Washington D.C., all of which accept and count late ballots, reports the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Mississippi argued in its brief to the Supreme Court that voters were required by federal law to “make a final choice of officers” by Election Day, contending this does not mean that ballots have to be received by then. 

The Republican National Committee (RNC), disagreed, saying states were experimenting “with novel ballot handling rules.” Its brief quoted a previous Supreme Court decision: 

These post-election receipt deadlines invite “the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.” …

It’s hard to blame Americans for those suspicions when some States produce quick results, while others take days to even know how many ballots need to be counted.  

While we won’t know the outcome for several months, conservative justices signaled their concern when late ballots are counted. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh quoted a law review article from New York University Professor Richard Pildes. Kavanaugh said: 

Professor Pildes and others have said that late-arriving ballots open up a risk of what might destabilize the election results. “If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode. The longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.” 

He then asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart: 

Is that a real concern? Two, does that factor into how we think about how to resolve the scant text and the maybe conflicting or evolving history here?

Stewart responded that he respected that perception but added, “There has not been much of a showing about actual fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipt itself.” 

Other conservative justices expressed concern with Mississippi’s law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Stewart why the state allows the U.S. Postal Service, whose workers are not state officials,to deliver late ballots that will be counted but preclude a friend or neighbor from delivering ballots “as long as it gets to the ballot box five days after Election Day.” 

Justice Samuel Alito pointed to Washington state, which allows ballots to be received and counted 21 days after Election Day, asking Stewart if there was an outer limit to when ballots can be received.  

Alito also pointed to elections taking place on a single day, saying: 

We have lots of phrases that involve two words, the last of which, the second of which is day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington’s birthday, Independence Day, birthday, and Election Day, and they’re all particular days.

The justice did note that there were some exceptions to the single day during times of war, but then asked, “What would an ordinary person have thought Election Day meant in 1872?” – the year Congress directed House elections occur on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. 

The more liberal justices seemed likely to side with Mississippi, saying courts should defer to state and federal laws. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to the long history of permitting absentee ballots received after Election Day to be counted during times of crisis, like the Civil War and World War II. She said to Stewart: 

So the people who should decide this issue are not the courts but Congress, correct? … The states and Congress.

Mississippi first enacted the law to accept late-arriving mail-in ballots during the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020. RNC, the Mississippi Republican Party and two individuals challenged the law in January 2024. 

The next month, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi also filed a lawsuit against the state’s election policy. The cases were consolidated by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which later ruled against the plaintiffs.  

The RNC and the Libertarian Party appealed, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, so Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson appealed to the Supreme Court. 

At issue are two provisions in the U.S. Constitution. The electors clause states, “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors” for president. The elections clause gave states the authority to decide “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” but it adds, “The Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” 

Initially, states had 34 days in which to hold elections, but the outcome from early voting states could affect turnout and influence votes in states that held late elections. 

In 1845, Congress established the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the date for presidential elections, voting in 1872 that House elections would be held the same day. In 1914, after the 17th Amendment was passed allowing direct voting for senators, Congress again voted to hold those elections on the same day as the presidential and House elections. 

Voters want access to voting, but they also want election security, with elections free from fraud or the appearance of fraud. 

A recent poll from the Honest Elections Project showed that 83% of voters support Election Day ballot deadlines, with 78% of voters agreeing that this makes elections more secure. 

We’ll know in several months whether the Court agrees with them and decides whether federal laws mandate that ballots are cast and received by Election Day. 

The case is Watson v. RNC. 

Related articles and resources: 

Are Elections Secure? 10 Examples of Election Issues Around the Country

Can the US Postal System Be Trusted with Our Ballots?

Election Security Is on the Ballot in November and December

Georgia’s Election Integrity Act – Voter Suppression or Election Integrity?

The Heritage Foundation: Election Integrity and the American Republic

Is it ‘Voter Suppression’ to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote?

Supreme Court Affirms Parents’ Rights Over California’s ‘Transgender’ School Policies

The United States Supreme Court struck a blow against the California Department of Education and schools that hide information from parents about a child’s sexual identity confusion.

In a 6-3 per curiam [by the Court] decision, the justices struck down a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had blocked a lower court decision affirming parents’ rights over school “transgender parental exclusion policies.” 

The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, involved California teachers who were forced to lie to parents about children’s “transgender” ideation, as well as the parents whose rights were violated by those lies. 

In a press release announcing the victory for parental rights and religious freedom, the Thomas More Society called the decision “historic and groundbreaking,” saying the ruling “dismantles California’s secret gender transition regime.” 

“Transgender identity” is a serious mental health issue, often accompanied by other significant mental, social and psychological problems. Children wrestling with sexual identity confusion often have deep-seated hatred of their bodies, accompanied by the mistaken belief that they can somehow change their sex with dangerous and experimental medical interventions. 

Of course schools should inform parents if their children are wrestling with these challenges.

Following the Court’s ruling, California schools can no longer hide this vital information from parents while this case continues to make its way through the courts.

The Thomas More Society, which fights on behalf of life, family and freedom, explained the significance of the ruling:

The landmark 6-3 decision is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation. The Court found that California’s secret transition regime likely violates parents’ rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that the state “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

The opinion has important ramifications, as almost 40 similar cases are making their way through the courts. 

The case began in April 2023 when Thomas More brought a lawsuit on behalf of two middle school teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, against the Escondido Unified School District “over policies requiring them to keep secrets from, and even lie to, parents about their minor-age students.”

In its recent decision, the Supreme Court explained how the case grew from there: 

During litigation, the school district claimed that state law, as interpreted by the California attorney general and Department of Education, required it to adopt these policies. So the teachers added state officials as defendants, and parents of California schoolchildren joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

One set of parents, “John and Jane Poe,” rejected transgender dogma, including the idea that children have a “gender identity” different from their sex. But their school affirmed their seventh-grade daughter’s use of a male name and male pronouns. 

Sadly, as the opinion explains: 

At the beginning of their daughter’s eighth-grade year, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Only then did her parents learn from a doctor that she had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school.

The parents moved her to a different school, but educators there also affirmed her delusion,“citing their obligations under California state law.”  

Similarly, a school hid another seventh-grade girl’s shift to using a male name and pronouns from her parents, “John and Jane Doe,” who also joined the case. 

From these beginnings, the case grew into a class action lawsuit on behalf of all California parents and educators who disagreed with state transgender mandates, for religious or other reasons. 

The California Department of Education had based its parental exclusion policies on state anti-discrimination and privacy statutes. The department argued that telling parents about children’s sexual identity confusion violated students’ right to privacy and was discriminatory. 

But parents and teachers countered, saying their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction. 

He ruled that the school district and the state could not enforce the “offensive policy while the case is under court consideration.” 

The Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling in favor of the state, so plaintiffs appealed to the high Court. 

This decision only overturned the Ninth Circuit ruling on behalf of parents and did not discuss the issue of educators being forced to lie. 

Per curiam decisions are usually anonymous and unsigned, but several Justices signaled their agreement with this one: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the request to overrule the Ninth Circuit in full; Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the application; and Neil Gorsuch was part of the 6-3 majority.  

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion discussing the religious freedom and substantive due process issues, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining her. 

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision, saying the Court had acted precipitously and could have chosen one of the almost 40 similar cases to fully evaluate the issues.

The case is Mirabelli v. Bonta. 

Related articles and resources: 

Thomas More Society: Mirabelli, et al. v. Bonta and U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Historic, Groundbreaking Victory for Parental Rights, Dismantles California’s Secret Gender Transition Regime

BREAKING: Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Says California School District Cannot Force Teachers to Lie to Parents About Their Children’s ‘Gender Identity’

California Teachers Told to Hide Information About Students’ ‘Gender’ From Parents – They’re Suing

California Schools May Not Hide Students’ ‘Gender Identity’ From Parents

Exclusive Interview: Colorado Parents Expose ‘Gender Cult’ at Public School in New Documentary

Florida Parents Sue School for Helping Teen ‘Transition’ – Without Their Knowledge or Consent

Homosexuality Resources

Six California School Districts Pass Parental Notification Policies for Children Confused About Their Sexual Identity

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Colorado Case on Parental Rights, Still Considering Two Similar Cases

Transgender Resources

What’s Your School District’s ‘Transgender’ Policy?