CPRC Files Ninth Circuit Brief in Mirabelli v. Bonta

Mirabelli is NOT Over — CPRC files amicus brief encouraging the Ninth Circuit to follow the Supreme Court's decision

The Supreme Court already said California’s secrecy policy likely violates parental rights. CPRC just told the Ninth Circuit to enforce that ruling.

Introduction

Mirabelli v. Bonta is the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court issued an interim order holding that California’s Parental Secrecy Policy likely violates parents’ fundamental rights to direct the upbringing of their children and to direct their religious upbringing.

The policy tells schools not to inform parents when a child asserts a discordant gender identity at school unless the child consents. It also allows schools to use opposite-sex names and pronouns and to treat the child as the opposite sex during the school day without the parents’ knowledge.

A federal district court enjoined the policy. The Ninth Circuit stayed that injunction. The Supreme Court then reinstated the injunction. The state’s appeal is now back before the Ninth Circuit for a decision on the merits.

On September 2, 2026, CPRC and Our Duty–USA filed an amicus brief asking the Ninth Circuit to affirm the district court and keep the policy blocked.

Why this filing matters

This is not a new fight. It is the next chapter of Mirabelli.

The Supreme Court has already said these policies “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” It recognized that parents have a right to receive the information they need when a child shows signs of gender dysphoria at school. It also said the intrusion here is even greater than the LGBTQ-inclusive book policy the Court addressed in Mahmoud v. Taylor.

The question now is whether the Ninth Circuit will follow that guidance or keep open California’s path to keep hiding social transitions from parents.

What our brief argues

The brief, prepared by CPRC attorney Mary E. McAlister (Counsel of Record) with Erin Friday of Our Duty–USA, makes three core points:

  • The Parental Secrecy Policy usurps parents’ fundamental right to make mental health decisions for their children.
  • The policy violates parents’ Free Exercise right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
  • The policy upends the constitutional balance between parents and schools. Enrolling a child in public school does not give the state authority to socially transition that child in secret.

The brief also explains that these policies do not protect children. They shut parents out of decisions with lifelong consequences and jeopardize a child’s right to an open future.

What California parents have lived through

Our brief includes accounts from California parents, including Our Duty members, whose children were socially transitioned at school without consent. The pattern is the same across districts:

  • Schools used opposite-sex names and pronouns while hiding it from parents.
  • Some schools called Child Protective Services when parents objected.
  • Some counselors and teachers believed secrecy was mandated by law
  • For several families, the child’s distress eased only after the parent learned the truth and removed the child from the environment.

Those stories are in the brief. They are why this appeal is not an abstract legal dispute. It is about whether California can keep treating fit parents as problems instead of protectors.

Read the brief

You can read the full amicus brief filed September 2 here. The PDF will be posted as soon as it is available.

CPRC will keep pressing this case and others like it until parental secrecy policies are no longer the default in American schools.

Donate Now
← Back to News