SCOTUS Pumps Breaks On Cali Schools Doing Something That ‘Never Happens’

The contest of rights before SCOTUS involved the rights of teachers to facilitate life-changing decisions in minor children while keeping their parents in the dark about the details.

One side argued the rights case from the perspective of a gender-conflicted child because the parents might not be supportive of a child jumping into a radical change of identity.

On the other hand, teachers have no burden of care or attachment on children. Parents are left to help pick up the shattered pieces in a case like the confused young girl from the State of the Union who suffered terribly in her teen years because courts sided against the parents and threw her into a boys’ home.

This early ruling giving an injunction from the court suggests that SCOTUS is likely to find in favour of the Christian parents.

The Supreme Court on Monday night granted a request from a group of California parents to reinstate a ruling by a federal district court that prohibits schools in that state from “misleading parents about their children’s gender presentation” and that requires schools to follow parents’ instructions regarding the names and pronouns that children use there. In a seven-page order, the majority explained that the parents were likely to prevail on their claim that California’s policies violate the parents’ right to freely exercise their religion and their right to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.”
[…] The majority explained that the parents were ultimately likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that the state’s policies interfere with their right to freely exercise their religion. The policies are subject to the most stringent constitutional test, known as strict scrutiny, the majority wrote, because “they substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.’” And they cannot pass that test, the majority continued, despite the state’s contention 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 added, 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.” — Amy Howe, SCOTUS Blog

It’s not resolved, but it’s trending in the direction of parental rights.