Supreme Court rejects California district seeking to require schools notify parents of kids' gender transitions
The U.S. Supreme Court will not intervene in a case centered on a California school district's policy requiring parents to be notified if their children seek to identify as a different gender in school.
In an orders list issued Monday, the Supreme Court declined without comment to hear arguments in the case of Rocklin Unified School District v. Public Employment Relations Board et al.
The high court's refusal to hear the case leaves in place a decision by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) blocking the implementation of a proposed parental notification policy.
In September 2023, the Rocklin Unified School District (RUSD) proposed revisions to its regulations requiring officials to immediately notify parents if their children requested to be identified as a different gender, use different pronouns or a different name, or gain access to sex-specific facilities that did not align with their sex.
When the proposed revisions became public, the Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (RTPA), a labor union, claimed they were unlawful and filed a complaint with PERB.
PERB ruled against the school district, concluding that the proposed parental notification policy violated state law and that RUSD had failed to include RTPA in the revisions process.
RUSD appealed the PERB decision to the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal and later to the California Supreme Court. Both courts declined to hear the case.
In April, the California Justice Center and the Liberty Justice Center filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on behalf of RUSD, arguing that the policy involved parental rights.
“PERB has the authority to resolve labor disputes, not issues of constitutional law. Nonetheless, PERB concluded that the Parental Notification Policy was unlawful,” the appeal stated. “In deciding that the Policy was illegal, PERB not only asserted improper jurisdiction, but also violated the constitutional rights of public-school parents.”
"If PERB’s decision is left to stand, a union could sue a school board over any policy it opposes on substance on the basis that the adoption of such policy violates the procedural requirements in the collective bargaining agreement."
Debate has intensified nationwide over whether school districts should inform parents if their child seeks to identify as a different gender.
In March, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 per curiam opinion ruling against a California public school policy requiring teachers to withhold information from parents when a child identifies as trans.
“The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents,” the per curiam opinion stated.
"The State’s interest in safety could be served by a policy that allows religious exemptions while precluding gender-identity disclosure to parents who would engage in abuse. For these reasons, the parents who object to the California policies on free exercise grounds are likely to succeed on the merits."
In late April, the high court issued an order denying without comment an appeal by parents suing a Florida school district that socially transitioned their daughter without their knowledge or consent.
