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.”
Breaking, PAM BONDI discloses that she has been diagnosed with…
____BY 118_____
Steve Yates discusses Pam Bondi's contributions after her removal as attorney general
Steve Yates, former deputy national security advisor for Vice President Cheney, reflects on Attorney General Pam Bondi's significant contributions, especially in fighting illicit fentanyl and advocating for victims.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Former Attorney General Pam Bondi was diagnosed with thyroid cancer shortly after departing the Department of Justice last month, according to a report.
Bondi, 60, who left her role at the Justice Department in early April, underwent treatment and is recovering, a source told Axios.
Katie Miller, a former White House staffer and podcast host who is married to White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, reposted the report on X on Tuesday.
"Pam has been quietly kicking cancer's ass the last few weeks," she wrote.
PAM BONDI CANCELS APPEARANCE AT ANTI-TRAFFICKING SUMMIT OVER MEDICAL ISSUE
Attorney General Pam Bondi takes her seat before testifying at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Department of Justice on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 11, 2026. (Roberto Schmidt/AFP)
She added that Bondi has "a heart of gold."
Axios disclosed the health update while reporting that Bondi has been appointed by President Donald Trump to an advisory committee focused on artificial intelligence policy.
The White House confirmed to Fox News Digital that Bondi will serve on the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
"Pam has been an enormously valuable asset to the president's team, and I'm thrilled for her and for all of us that she's going to remain involved in confronting some of the most important issues the administration faces," Vice President JD Vance said in a statement.
AG PAM BONDI SUGGESTS TRUMP'S CRIME CRACKDOWN IN DC WILL HELP LATINO RESIDENTS
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 7, 2025. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The council is co-chaired by White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and White House science advisor Michael Kratsios.
Bondi will reportedly help facilitate coordination between the federal government and technology executives serving on the panel.
News of Bondi’s diagnosis and new advisory role comes weeks after Trump removed her as attorney general.
KARL ROVE: TRUMP DROPPED BONDI, BUT THE REAL POLITICAL FIGHT IS JUST BEGINNING
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche attends a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 19, 2025. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
In a Truth Social post announcing her departure, Trump described Bondi as "a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend."
"Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country, with Murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900," Trump wrote. "We love Pam, and she will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future."
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has served as acting attorney general since Bondi’s departure.
BLANCHE INVOKES TRUMP ‘LOVE’ WHEN ASKED ABOUT STAYING ON AFTER BONDI
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks as President Donald Trump looks on during a news conference in the Oval Office of the White House on Oct. 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
In a post on X confirming her exit from the Justice Department, Bondi said she remains "eternally grateful for the trust that President Trump placed in me to Make America Safe Again."
"Over the next month I will be working tirelessly to transition the office of Attorney General to the amazing Todd Blanche before moving to an important private sector role I am thrilled about, and where I will continue fighting for President Trump and this Administration," Bondi wrote.
"Leading President Trump’s historic and highly successful efforts to make America safer and more secure has been the honor of a lifetime, and easily the most consequential first year of the Department of Justice in American history."
Judge Tosses Wolff Suit, Clearing Path For $1B Melania Claim
Wolff filed suit against Trump seeking to block her from suing him for $1 billion for alleged defamatory claims he made regarding her association with Jeffrey Epstein.
“It’s an inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship,” said Manhattan Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, an appointee of President Donald Trump.
Vyskocil said she would not be “drafted to oversee an abusively presented spat,” yet she recognized that both sides have a “real dispute.”
Last year, the first lady’s lawyer issued Wolff a letter demanding he delete the statements he made about Trump and threatening that she would have “no alternative” but to sue him if he didn’t.
That spurred him to sue her in state court in October.
Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, had the complaint moved to federal court, where Vyskocil declared that while federal court does have jurisdiction, she was declining to exercise it and “dismisses this case to be litigated like any other.”
A Melania Trump spokesperson said that the first lady “is proud to continue standing up to, and fighting against, those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods as they desperately try to get undeserved attention and money from their unlawful conduct.”
The 56-year-old’s lawyer previously claimed that Wolff’s statements caused her “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.”
The first lady has denied any association with Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of child sex trafficking.
“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” the first lady said in an April press conference.
“The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation,” she added at the time.
Wolff claimed in his lawsuit that the president and first lady “have made a practice of threatening those who speak against them” with costly legal actions “to silence their speech, to intimidate their critics generally, and to extract unjustified payments and North Korean-style confessions and apologies.”
He added that some of his statements were taken out of context and some were protected speech, including a statement he made that claimed the Trumps have a “sham marriage, trophy marriage,” that his lawsuit says was a “fair and justified” opinion.
It also said in his lawsuit that Wolff never accused the first lady of being involved with criminal activity associated with Epstein.
The Daily Beast retracted an article last summer, titled “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” which was based on an interview with Wolff, after the outlet received a letter from Brito.
In the interview that formed the basis for the retracted piece, Wolff said he reported that the first lady was “behind the scenes” dealing with the situation at the White House, but was not involved criminally.
Republican Rep. Nancy Mace praised Melania Trump at the time for coming out against Epstein.
“Melania Trump stands with Epstein victims,” Mace said, citing the first lady’s advocacy for legislation addressing the distribution of fake intimate images. “The truth will prevail.”
Democratic lawmakers also commented following the statement.
Rep. Robert Garcia called for a public hearing, writing, “We agree with First Lady Melania Trump’s call for a public hearing,” Garcia said. “We encourage Chairman Comer to schedule a hearing immediately.”
Garcia said the remarks renewed attention on the broader investigation.
In her remarks, Melania Trump called on Congress to take action.
“Now is the time for Congress to act,” she said.
She urged lawmakers to allow victims to testify under oath.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
