Opinion: Parental rights vs. student privacy in CA’s Mirabelli v. Bonta

The Supreme Court’s most recent stay on the 2023 forced outing court case Mirabelli v. Bonta reinforces parental rights over transgender students’ privacy

By Staff Writers Amber Halvorsen, Erika Liu, Michael Qin, & Warren Su 

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s most recent stay on the April 2023 case Mirabelli v. Bonta — initially filed in April 2023 against policies preventing parents from knowing if their child had transitioned gender at school — debate has only intensified, demonstrating a growing tug-of-war between student privacy and parent support. Parents, LGBTQ+ activists, and policymakers everywhere are divided on how best to protect their children.   

Background

Mirabelli v. Bonta began with two teachers in the Escondido Union School District (EUSD), who sought to remove school policies allowing administrators to withhold information on a student’s gender identity from their parents. The case resurfaced this year following the suicide attempts of two fifth- and seventh-grade transgender students in EUSD. Parents brought a class-action lawsuit to the Supreme Court on the grounds of religion described in the First Amendment and the unenumerated right to child-rearing described in the 14th Amendment. On March 2, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mirabelli, now requiring schools to inform parents of their students’ on-campus gender expression when explicitly asked.

The Court’s decision was an unsigned emergency order that failed to fully explain itself. It effectively blocked a CA law, AB 1955 “Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act” (SAFETY), still active in CA schools, which prohibited schools from implementing policies that forced staff to disclose a student’s gender or orientation without their consent, while protecting administrators who decided not to “out” gender non-conforming students. 

The Smoke Signal interviewed three transgender students, two of which have been granted fake names to preserve anonymity, to offer better insight into the implications of Mirabelli v. Bonta. “M” and “Robert” lent their experiences without disclosing their identities out of fear of retribution or harassment. 

By approaching the topic from both sides, the Smoke Signal assessed the rationale behind such a highly contentious case — as well as how similar legislation is shaping the world of education and gender politics in CA going forward. 

Pro

Mirabelli v. Bonta ultimately advocates for the well-being of students by giving parents the opportunity to guide their children in a way that is necessary for their development.

Outed LGBTQ+ students face a disproportionately greater risk of abuse at home. However, blanket laws like the SAFETY Act fail to effectively root out abuse. If a student faces potential domestic abuse, continuing a secret transition only delays addressing these risks at home. Instead of keeping families and schools separate, at-risk students need coordinated solutions with social services. Mirabelli v. Bonta gives CA lawmakers the opportunity to more thoroughly protect domestic abuse victims while granting parents more avenues to support their children. Research from the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2025 states that “youth- and family-centered care leads to better health outcomes … and greater patient and family satisfaction.” By withholding information, schools effectively blind the very people responsible for the constant support of students vital for their safety.

Social transitioning can boost mental health and self esteem, but only if it is validated by personal support systems. According to a 2019 study from The Trevor Project and the Family Acceptance Project, LGBTQ+ youth had a 40% lower chance of a suicide attempt when their outed sexual orientation or gender was validated by at least one adult, compared to those who didn’t feel as accepted. While transparency doesn’t ensure acceptance, the alternative — complete secrecy — guarantees total isolation, which fails to resolve abuse and further exacerbates the mental health struggles of vulnerable students. 

Furthermore, though the SAFETY Act allows teachers to respect student privacy, it doesn’t hold them accountable for providing the necessary support. In the 2024-25 school year, the American School Counselor Association found that CA public schools have an average 432:1 student-to-counselor ratio, a clear indication that individualized care for vulnerable students is nearly impossible when staff availability is stretched too thin. Expecting any teacher to provide adequate mental health support without proper licensing or experience while simultaneously teaching classes seriously jeopardizes students’ health. Without parental involvement, there would be even fewer safeguards for vulnerable students — an area the SAFETY Act heavily overlooks. “No one’s a bigger champion of children than their parents, and we don’t want to take the role of parents,” co‑plaintiff teacher Lori Ann West said in a CBN interview.

By institutionalizing deception, schools are breaking the trust between administrators and families while denying vulnerable students unified support. Sunny He, a transmasculine student at MSJ, offered his personal experience. “It is suffocating to hide yourself out of fear that you will be harmed. Not everyone has parents they can feel safe coming out to. It’s awful that in those cases, they are forced to endure it themselves,” He said.

Con

Mirabelli v. Bonta is regressive toward the safety of gender non-conforming individuals. The partial decision utilizes a flawed and targeted framework to strip transgender students of their right to privacy, even in situations where it is often necessary.

Mirabelli v. Bonta legalizes forced “outing” — in other words, the forced revealing of one’s gender identity. Forced outing has been statistically proven to increase rates of depression and suicidal ideation amongst transgender youths. In one 2023 University of Connecticut study, 69% of LGBTQ+ youth reported that being outed to their parents was extremely stressful. Additionally, transgender and nonbinary youths report the highest rates of depression out of all LGBTQ+ demographics. Students who couldn’t use their preferred name and pronouns were 56% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior and 29% more likely to experience suicidal ideation, according to the Journal of Adolescent Health, demonstrating a significant mortal impact.

Mirabelli v. Bonta fails to address these fatal statistics because it is overly optimistic — it forces total transparency while neglecting the harsh social realities of what it actually means to be transgender. Sadly, many transgender children do not enjoy stable home lives. In studies done by The Trevor Project, approximately 35-39% of transgender youths have experienced homelessness or housing instability at some point. Fewer than a third of transgender and nonbinary youths found their home to be gender affirming. One transgender student, “M,” who is only using their first initial out of safety and privacy concerns, stated that his life has become “significantly worse” after coming out, thanks in part to a lack of stability and support in his life. “If my mom found out I was telling people I am a boy, she would kick me out of the house,” he said. “People hate transgender people … [Outing] can be dangerous.” Another transgender student, “Robert,” who is also using a pseudonym out of safety concerns, mentioned that he had experienced issues with older relatives in the past. He also felt a compulsion to hide his identity. “I had to mask all the time … I was quite depressed,” Robert said.

When faced with the social vitriol inherent to coming out, keeping one’s identity a secret naturally feels safer and more affirming. The SAFETY Act provided transgender students at least a degree of agency with such a sensitive decision. However, Mirabelli v. Bonta robs transgender students of that personal choice, pushing them into making a decision they may be potentially unprepared for. 

The shortfalls of Mirabelli v. Bonta don’t end there. Proponents state that the policy protects freedom of religion under the First Amendment. Yet, this focus on how a child’s on-campus activities conflict with their religious identity does not extend to any other aspect of their lives. Proponents also often cite the right to transparency in child-rearing as implicitly stated in the 14th Amendment. However, there are many extant policies in CA that already ensure privacy to minors regardless. CA Education Code 49602 guarantees that personal information shared by a 12-year-old or older is confidential and cannot be shared to parents, with very limited exceptions for safety. Some policies even prevent parents from knowing if a minor has had a pregnancy or abortion. In such cases, it’s recognized that privacy for minors is not deception, but an ethical duty. It is odd that the decision on Mirabelli v. Bonta only goes so far as to dismantle privacy to the extent that it applies to gender. It’s a double standard — a slippery slope for future transgender legislation. “It starts little by little,” He said, regarding his thoughts on the court case. “But [policymakers] will eventually try to make our existence illegal. That scares me.” 

Conclusion 

Mirabelli v. Bonta has created a political rift in education. The political polarization regarding gender transitions has led to both sides of the debate focusing on personal beliefs rather than what helps transgender students. 

The LGBTQ+ community continues to rally for the right to come out on their own terms. Lawmakers,  meanwhile, must leave personal biases behind, keeping the happiness and security of the students they serve forefront. No one should have to fight for the right to exist. “I don’t face immediate danger, but that doesn’t mean the harm isn’t there,” He said. “Just because I am fortunate right now doesn’t mean I can afford to be ignorant.”