The U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2026 emergency order in Mirabelli v. Bonta has had a significant impact on parent/guardian rights and the treatment of student gender identity in public schools. This article summarizes the Mirabelli decision, identifies the key CSBA sample policy documents that are affected, and details how those sample policy documents have changed to reflect the Supreme Court order.

Under California law, local educational agencies are prohibited from discriminating against a student on a variety of protected characteristics including, but not limited to, sex, sex stereotypes, gender identity and/or gender expression. In practice, this prohibition means that LEAs should:

• Accept a student’s assertion of gender identity and treat the student consistent with that gender identity
• Address the student by the student’s requested name and pronouns
• Permit a student to access facilities and participate in programs and activities consistent with the student’s gender identity

In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Supreme Court affirmed a federal district court’s order that clarified certain constitutional rights for parents/guardians of public school students and imposed new restrictions on LEAs when a student’s gender identity differs from the assigned gender based on the student’s sex at birth. Under the Supreme Court and the district court’s orders, parents/guardians have the right to object to any treatment of a student by an LEA that is inconsistent with the assigned gender based on the student’s sex at birth. Additionally, an LEA is prohibited from enforcing any policies, laws, guidance or training that would permit or require LEA employees to lie to or mislead a parent/guardian about a student’s gender presentation at school. The orders permit a carve out in situations where disclosure to a parent/guardian would threaten the well-being of the student.

When California law and Mirabelli are read together, an LEA is:

• Required to defer to a student’s asserted gender identity — and treat that student accordingly — unless the student’s parent/guardian objects;
• Prohibited from undermining the parent/guardian’s ability to object to the LEA’s treatment of the student that is consistent with the student’s asserted gender identity; and
• Forbidden from proactively interfering with the parent/guardian’s awareness of a student’s asserted gender identity unless there is a reasonable belief that doing so would endanger the well-being of the student.

The Mirabelli orders directly impact a number of CSBA’s sample board policy (BP) documents concerning nondiscrimination, parent/guardian rights and student privacy.

Most impacted is sample BP and Administrative Regulation (AR) 5145.3 – Nondiscrimination/Harassment, which outlines the responsibilities of districts and county offices of education to ensure equal access and a safe environment for all students. Accordingly, CSBA has updated sample BP/AR 5145.3 to state that:

• Districts and COEs shall accept a student’s assertion of their gender identity and treat them consistently with that identity unless the student’s parent/guardian objects
• District and COE personnel shall address a student by their requested name and pronoun, unless the student’s parent/guardian objects
• District and COE personnel shall consistently use the same name and pronouns when addressing the student at school and when speaking with the student’s parent/guardian, unless there is a reasonable belief that doing so would endanger the well-being of the student
• Students shall be permitted to access sex-segregated facilities (such as restrooms and locker rooms) and participate in sex-segregated programs (such as physical education and intramural sports) and activities (such as class discussions, field trips, and yearbook pictures) consistent with their gender identity, unless the student’s parent/guardian objects
• If needed, the compliance officer shall develop strategies to maintain a student’s access to educational programs based on the student’s gender identity, unless the student’s parent/guardian objects to doing so, with an exception where there is a reasonable belief that involving the parent/guardian would endanger the well-being of the student

Additionally, CSBA has updated sample AR 5020 – Parent Rights and Responsibilities, which establishes the rights of parents/guardians under state and federal law. (While there is an associated sample board policy which is also being updated, the text of the policy is not directly impacted by Mirabelli.) Sample AR 5020 has been amended to authorize a parent/guardian to object, in accordance with AR 5145.3 – Nondiscrimination/Harassment, to any treatment of the student that is inconsistent with the student’s sex, such as in the use of the student’s preferred name and pronouns and access to sex-segregated facilities, programs and activities.

In addition, CSBA has updated sample BP 5022 – Student and Family Privacy Rights, which protects the privacy rights of students and families. BP 5022 has been amended to note that Mirabelli impacts these privacy rights and recommends consulting CSBA’s District and County Office of Education Legal Services or other legal counsel when disclosing a student’s gender identity or when a parent/guardian objects to the district treating a student in a manner inconsistent with the student’s sex at birth.

It is always important for districts and COEs to keep their policies up to date. But this is particularly important in the context of Mirabelli, given the potential political and legal implications of outdated policies and practices. Additionally, because this area of law remains complex and continues to evolve, CSBA recommends consulting CSBA’s District and County Office of Education Legal Services or other legal counsel when updating these policies or when facing questions about disclosing a student’s gender identity or responding to a parent/guardian’s objection regarding how a student is treated.