Case in brief: Mirabelli v. Bonta asks whether public-school employees can be constitutionally required to notify parents when a student says they are transgender and asks for confidentiality. The dispute follows Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), which expanded parental notice and opt-out rights for LGBTQ-themed classroom materials. If extended beyond curriculum, that reasoning could force schools to disclose private student information and strain local control and student safety. The appeals court noted Mirabelli’s rules appear to apply only when a student voluntarily discloses their identity to school staff.
Supreme Court Weighs Whether Teachers Must Reveal Students’ Trans Identities to Parents
Would you trust this guy to raise your child? | Win McNamee/Getty Images
The Supreme Court is weighing a consequential challenge to student privacy and parental rights in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a case that asks whether public school employees may be constitutionally required to notify parents when a student tells school staff they are transgender and requests confidentiality. The dispute is currently on the Court’s shadow docket and raises questions about how far parental authority extends into public-school operations.
What the Cases Are
Mirabelli v. Bonta challenges a California statute that prohibits public school employees from disclosing a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the pupil’s consent, unless another law requires disclosure. Plaintiffs argue the law is unconstitutional and that parents have a right to be informed when gender nonconformity is observed.
The Court is also considering a closely related petition, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, on its merits docket. These disputes come on the heels of Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), in which the Court’s current majority held that parents who object to LGBTQ-themed classroom materials must be notified and allowed to opt their children out of those lessons.
Legal Stakes
At issue in Mirabelli is whether the Constitution requires schools to prioritize parental notification over a student’s request for confidentiality—potentially obligating teachers to disclose sensitive information even when a disclosure could put a child at risk. Plaintiffs rely in part on older precedents recognizing parental liberty to direct a child’s upbringing, but defenders of the California law emphasize longstanding limits on parents’ authority over public-school operations.
Why This Matters
The outcome could reshape how schools manage student privacy, how they respond to disclosures of gender identity, and how broadly Mahmoud’s notice-and-opt-out principles apply. If the Court extends Mahmoud beyond curricular materials into operational policies, schools may be forced to police and disclose many kinds of student behavior or beliefs at parents’ request—raising practical and safety concerns for vulnerable students.
Precedent and Institutional Concerns
Historically, the Court has recognized that public education helps impart civic values while also protecting individual rights. Cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines strike a balance: students retain constitutional rights at school, but those rights can be limited to prevent disruption. Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters recognized parental liberty to direct education choices, but they were not rulings that allow parents to dictate how public schools operate.
In Mahmoud, the Court’s majority endorsed broad parental notice and opt-out rights for curricular content, prompting warnings from dissenters that such a rule could push districts to censor materials preemptively to avoid costly opt-outs and litigation. Advocates on both sides now ask whether that logic should be extended to require disclosure of students’ private identities.
Practical and Ethical Questions
Legal scholars and educators note the practical problems with extending a strict notice rule beyond curriculum. Would schools be required to report student choices around dress, religious symbols, food, romantic relationships, or personal beliefs if a parent might object? And how should teachers respond when they reasonably believe disclosure would endanger a student?
The appeals court that rejected the Mirabelli plaintiffs emphasized a limiting principle: the challenged policies appear to apply only when students voluntarily tell school staff about their gender identity. That framing highlights the tension between a student’s autonomy and a parent’s interest in directing upbringing.
What to Watch
Key signals will include whether the Court grants review on the merits for Mirabelli or Foote, whether it narrows Mahmoud’s reach to curricular matters only, and how the justices balance parental rights against student privacy and safety. Any ruling that compels disclosure of students’ gender identity could have nationwide consequences for school policy, student safety protocols, and local control of education.
Bottom line: Mirabelli poses a direct test of whether the Constitution requires teachers and school staff to disclose a student’s transgender status to parents over the student’s wishes—an outcome that would transform how schools handle confidential student information and heighten the stakes of parental-rights litigation.
Help us improve.
