The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a dispute involving a California school district’s effort to require parental notification when students seek gender-related accommodations at school, leaving lower rulings against the policy intact.
In an orders list released Monday, the justices declined to hear the case of Rocklin Unified School District v. Public Employment Relations Board et al. without explaining their decision.
As a result, a previous ruling by California’s Public Employment Relations Board remains in effect, preventing the district from enforcing the proposed notification requirements.
The controversy began in September 2023 when the Rocklin Unified School District adopted revisions that would have required school staff to promptly inform parents if a student requested to use a different name or pronouns, identify as a different gender, or access sex-specific facilities inconsistent with the student's biological sex.
Shortly after the proposal was introduced, the Rocklin Teachers Professional Association challenged the measure, arguing that the district had acted improperly and that the policy violated state law. The union subsequently filed a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Board.
After reviewing the dispute, PERB sided with the union, determining that the district had not followed required procedures by excluding the teachers’ association from the policy-development process. The agency also concluded that the notification policy conflicted with California law.
School officials sought to overturn the ruling through the state court system, first appealing to California’s Third District Court of Appeal and later petitioning the California Supreme Court. Both courts declined to hear the case.
The legal battle reached the nation’s highest court in April when the California Justice Center and the Liberty Justice Center submitted a petition on behalf of the district, contending that the dispute implicated fundamental parental rights and exceeded PERB’s authority.
“PERB has the authority to resolve labor disputes, not issues of constitutional law. Nonetheless, PERB concluded that the Parental Notification Policy was unlawful,” the appeal stated. “In deciding that the Policy was illegal, PERB not only asserted improper jurisdiction, but also violated the constitutional rights of public-school parents.”
The filing further warned of broader implications if the agency’s decision remains in place.
“If PERB’s decision is left to stand, a union could sue a school board over any policy it opposes on substance on the basis that the adoption of such policy violates the procedural requirements in the collective bargaining agreement.”
The case comes amid a continuing national debate over whether schools should disclose to parents when a student adopts a gender identity different from his or her biological sex while at school.
The Supreme Court recently addressed a related issue in March, issuing a 6–3 per curiam opinion that struck down a California public school policy requiring educators to withhold information from parents when a child identified as transgender.
The high court also declined another parental-rights appeal earlier this year. In late April, the justices refused without comment to hear a case brought by parents who alleged that a Florida school district socially transitioned their daughter without informing or obtaining consent from the family.
