Gavin Newsom has been slammed for attacking the Supreme Court for blocking a California law that stopped schools from telling parents if their child was transgender.
The order for now halts a state law signed by the Gov. in July 2024 that barred school districts from requiring staff to notify parents of their child’s gender identification.
The ruling also blocks a rule that required teachers to use a student’s preferred pronouns.
Newsom was furious about the ruling, telling the Post on Tuesday: “Teachers should be focused on teaching — not forced to be gender cops.
“The shadow docket ruling by the Supreme Court undermines student privacy and the ability to learn in a safe and supportive classroom, free from discrimination based on gender identity.”
But Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton leapt on the comments, claiming the governor was putting his ideology above parents.
He told the Post: “Yet again Gavin Newsom and the Democrats are putting their insane, fringe ideology ahead of common sense and parents’ rights.
“Most people look at this and can’t understand why it’s even a question: of course parents should be told if their children change their gender.
“The justification Newsom claims for his parental secrecy policy is that without it, students will face harm. We have plenty of resources in California, inside and outside the school system, for any students who might be in that situation.
“There is no justification for the Democrats’ parental secrecy policy, and it just shows how far gone they really are.
“They think kids belong to the government, not parents, and it is disgusting to see Newsom take the side of far left ideologues against families.
“But no surprise from the guy who won’t do anything about biological boys in girls’ sports or evil child rapists being set free early.”
The Supreme Court’s split decision comes after religious parents and educators challenged California school policies aimed at preventing schools from outing students to their families.
Two sets of Catholic parents represented by the Thomas More Society say it caused schools to mislead them and secretly facilitate the children’s social transition despite their objections.
California, on the other hand, argued that students have the right to privacy about their gender expression, especially if they fear rejection from their families.
The state said that school policies and state law are aimed at striking a balance with parents’ rights.
The high court majority, though, sided with the parents and reinstated a lower-court order blocking the law and school policies while the case continues to play out.
“The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs.
California’s policies violate those beliefs,” and burden the free exercise of religion, the majority wrote in an unsigned order.
The court’s three liberal justices publicly dissented, saying the case is still working its way through lower courts and there was no need to step in now.
“If nothing else, this Court owes it to a sovereign State to avoid throwing over its policies in a slapdash way, if the Court can provide normal procedures. And throwing over a State’s policy is what the Court does today,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, noted they would have gone further and granted teachers’ appeal to lift restrictions for them.
The Thomas More Society called the decision “the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation.”
The Supreme Court has ruled for religious plaintiffs in other recent cases, including allowing parents to pull their children from public-school lessons if they object to storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters.
The California order comes months after the court upheld state bans on gender-identity-related healthcare for minors.
The justices also seem to be leaning toward allowing states to ban transgender athletes from playing on girls sports teams.
School policies for transgender students, meanwhile, have also been on the court’s radar in other cases.
