The U.S. Supreme Court just sent a clear message to California—and to every state with similar policies, including Washington: you cannot hide critical information from parents in the name of student “privacy.”
In a landmark ruling, with six justices voting in Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Court reinstated a permanent injunction blocking California’s school gender identity nondisclosure policies, finding they likely violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The majority found these policies fail “strict scrutiny,” the Constitution’s most demanding legal test requiring the government to prove its policy serves a compelling interest through the least restrictive means. Why do such school nondisclosure policies fail? Because they “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents,” says the Court.
This ruling matters here in Washington—right now—and every parent, educator, and school board member should know exactly why.
Washington didn’t just follow California’s lead—in key respects, it went further off the constitutional cliff.
California’s SAFETY Act (AB 1955), signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 15, 2024, was the first law of its kind in the nation. It barred school districts from enacting policies that required staff to notify parents about student gender identity without the student’s consent — but left individual educators free to use their own judgment.
Washington’s approach goes further.
California removed a mandate. Washington imposed a prohibition. The Gender-Inclusive Schools policy by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) establishes nondisclosure as the operative default—school staff “should not” share a student’s gender identity without the student’s consent. In fact, when one district tried to notify parents proactively anyway, OSPI ordered it to stop. The difference is not merely semantic: California’s law left room for educator judgment; Washington’s eliminated it.
Washington’s legislature went further still. In 2023, Washington citizens organized and gathered a historic number of signatures to qualify the Parents’ Bill of Rights initiative (Initiative 2081). In early 2024, the legislature adopted it with overwhelming bipartisan support: passing 82-15 in the House and unanimously in the Senate. However, the following year that same body, under the guise of “student safety,” gutted citizens’ work by passing HB 1296 to undo the Parents’ Bill of Rights.
Washington citizens are still pushing back, and a second initiative to restore the Parents’ Bill of Rights has now gathered over 400,000 signatures.
In short: Washington and California built similar legal structures, but Washington did so over the objection of its own citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has ruled such structures likely violate the Constitution.
Three Things the Ruling Actually Says—and What They Mean for Washington
1. The Court found these policies are likely unconstitutional for all parents, not just religious ones. The majority ruled that parents who object on religious grounds are likely to succeed on their First Amendment free exercise claim. But more broadly, the Court held that all parents—regardless of religion—likely have a constitutional due process right not to be “shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.” Policies that do so likely violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Those rights aren’t new. The Court has upheld them for over a century, grounded in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), and Parham v. J.R. (1979). And just last term, in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Court held that schools cannot override religious parents’ objections to curriculum on gender identity—establishing the strict scrutiny standard that Mirabelli now applies directly to nondisclosure policies.
2. The “student safety” defense failed—and Washington’s will, too. Both states argue that parental notification could endanger some transgender students. The Court acknowledged student safety as a compelling interest but rejected blanket nondisclosure as the means to achieve it. A policy that allows for case-by-case exceptions—shielding children from abusive parents while keeping fit parents informed—would survive. A policy that shuts all parents out by default does not. This reasoning directly undercuts OSPI’s stated rationale that “it is not safe for all individuals to open up to their family regarding gender identity”—a real concern, but one the Court says must be addressed with surgical precision, not a blanket gag rule on teachers and school personnel.
3. The State Superintendent has already promised to follow federal court rulings. As of publication, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal has not issued a statement about the Mirabelli ruling. However, at a January 8, 2026, press conference, he was asked about upcoming U.S. Supreme Court cases on transgender athletes. There he offered a broader commitment: “If the law changes because our state courts strike it down or change it, we’re going to uphold the law. If a federal court does it and goes through the process, we’ll uphold the law.” This week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling about parental notification and the forthcoming Ninth Circuit decision are exactly what Reykdal promised to uphold..
Real Families. Real Schools. Real Harm.
One set of parents in the Mirabelli case only learned their daughter had been identifying as a boy at school after she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Even after that, school staff continued withholding information from them, citing state law. Another family was told point-blank by a school principal that state law prohibited sharing information about their child’s gender identity without the child’s consent.
These are not hypothetical harms. These are real families, in real schools, describing what happens when government institutions—cloaked in the language of “privacy” and “safety”—systematically exclude parents from their children’s consequential health decisions.
The word “privacy” also has real meaning. Students deserve protection from abusive homes. No reasonable person disputes that. But privacy protections designed for students facing genuine danger have been applied as a blanket rule that overrides fit, loving, engaged parents who simply want to know what is happening in their child’s school day. That is not privacy. That is government secrecy—and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling makes this distinction clear.
Washington parents have the same rights as California parents. Washington law does not change that.
OSPI Is Now on the Clock and So are Washington School Districts
The Mirabelli case now returns to the Ninth Circuit, which covers Washington, for a full appeal, with the injunction reinstated. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is not a final merits decision, but it has clearly telegraphed exactly how it expects case to end. Based on standard Ninth Circuit briefing timelines, a panel decision is unlikely before late 2026 at the earliest, with a final ruling potentially extending into 2027. Notably, Justice Barrett’s concurrence signals that the U.S. Supreme Court expects the Ninth Circuit to proceed efficiently, without the months-long en banc delays the circuit is known for (Barrett concurrence, p. 4).
Washington faces three concrete consequences—starting now.
First, Reykdal’s office will need to address whether OSPI’s guidance to school districts remains enforceable in light of the ruling.
Second, the ongoing federal Department of Education investigation into OSPI, which formally opened April 30, 2025, now has the wind of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling at its back.
Third, Washington parents and teachers now have a direct legal template to bring their own lawsuits under Mirabelli‘s framework, in a circuit that is now on notice about how the U.S. Supreme Court views these policies. As Justice Barrett noted in her concurrence, the parents “must continue to litigate in the Ninth Circuit, and if necessary, this Court”—and that path runs straight through Washington (Barrett concurrence, p. 3).
“Privacy” is not a license for government secrecy. The U.S. Supreme Court said so this week. Now it’s Washington’s turn to get the message.
