Mike Jenkins | January 22, 2026
(Tampa Free Press)
The intensifying legal battle over the rights of parents versus the privacy of students in California public schools is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Thursday, the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) announced it has filed a “friend of the court” brief in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a high-profile case challenging a school district policy that requires staff to withhold information from parents regarding a student’s social transition.
The filing marks a significant escalation in a dispute that began in the Escondido Union School District (EUSD). At the center of the lawsuit are two middle school teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West. The educators sued the district, alleging that its policies forced them to deceive parents. According to the lawsuit, teachers were required to use a student’s preferred pronouns and names in the classroom but were expressly prohibited from revealing that information to parents without the student’s consent.
While the district has maintained such policies are necessary to protect student privacy and safety, the LJC and the plaintiffs argue it constitutes a violation of fundamental parental rights and religious liberties.
“California’s policy regime treats parents not as partners, but as problems,” said Rob Cowburn, Senior Counsel for Educational Freedom at the Liberty Justice Center. “The burden of proof is flipped: instead of the state justifying secrecy, parents must somehow earn transparency.”
The case has since expanded beyond the original two teachers into a class-action lawsuit. The new filing includes claims from parents who say they were left in the dark for months while their children were treated as a different gender at school. The lawsuit alleges that in some instances, this lack of transparency had dire consequences, citing a severe mental health crisis and a suicide attempt by a student whose parents were unaware of the social transition taking place at school.
The LJC’s brief, filed in support of Advancing American Freedom, asks the Supreme Court to vacate a stay issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If granted, this would reinstate a lower court’s injunction against the policy.
The core legal argument presented in the brief is that the right to direct a child’s upbringing is not limited to religious exemptions but is a fundamental right held by all parents. The brief contends that a child’s best interests are served when parents remain involved in their education, arguing that parental rights do not evaporate when a student walks onto a school campus.
To support this position, the LJC points to the professional opinion of Dr. Erica E. Anderson, a clinical psychologist with over four decades of experience in gender identity counseling. Dr. Anderson, who is transgender, has previously argued in multiple legal briefs that withholding significant information about a child’s mental and emotional well-being from their parents is detrimental to the child.
This move is part of a broader, multi-front legal conflict between parental rights advocates and the State of California. The LJC is currently involved in several related cases, including Chino Valley Unified School District v. Newsom, which challenges Assembly Bill 1955—a state law that effectively bans school districts from enacting mandatory parental notification policies regarding gender identity.
As the Supreme Court considers the request, the outcome could set a nationwide precedent on where the line is drawn between a student’s right to privacy and a parent’s right to know.
To see this article on the Tampa Free Press website, click here.
Learn more about this case here.