The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up a case involving a California school district’s proposed policy on parental notification, leaving in place a lower administrative ruling that blocks the measure. In an orders list issued, the Court declined without comment to hear Rocklin Unified School District v. Public Employment Relations Board et al., effectively ending the district’s effort to revive the policy at the federal level. The decision allows a prior ruling by California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to stand.
PERB had determined that the Rocklin Unified School District’s proposed policy—requiring schools to notify parents if a student sought to identify as a different gender—violated state law and was improperly adopted without union involvement. The policy, first introduced in September 2023, would have required school officials to inform parents if a student requested to use a different name or pronouns, identify as a different gender, or access facilities not aligned with their biological sex. The proposal quickly drew opposition from the Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (RTPA), which filed a complaint with PERB arguing the district had bypassed required collective bargaining procedures.
PERB ruled in favor of the union, concluding not only that the policy conflicted with California law but also that the district had failed to engage the union during the development process. The school district subsequently appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeal and later to the California Supreme Court. Both courts declined to review the case.
In April 2026, attorneys from the California Justice Center and the Liberty Justice Center filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the district, framing the issue as one of constitutional parental rights. The appeal argued that PERB had overstepped its authority by addressing constitutional questions rather than limiting its role to labor disputes. “PERB has the authority to resolve labor disputes, not issues of constitutional law,” the petition stated. It further argued that the ruling infringed on parental rights and could set a precedent allowing unions to challenge a wide range of school policies on procedural grounds.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves unresolved the broader constitutional questions raised by the district while maintaining the status quo established under California law. The dispute comes amid ongoing national debate over whether schools should be required to inform parents when students express a desire to identify as a different gender. Policies on the issue vary widely across states and districts, often reflecting broader disagreements over parental rights, student privacy, and school responsibilities.
The high court has recently weighed in on related issues. In March 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 per curiam opinion blocking a California school policy that required educators to withhold certain gender-identity information from parents. In that decision, the Court emphasized the role of parents, stating that such policies “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests.” However, the Court has not taken a consistent approach to all similar cases. In late April, it declined without comment to hear an appeal from parents in Florida who alleged that a school district socially transitioned their child without their knowledge or consent.
With the Court opting not to review the Rocklin case, legal observers note that the issue will likely continue to be contested in lower courts and state legislatures, as school districts nationwide grapple with how to balance competing concerns over parental involvement and student privacy.
PRAY: Pray this continued push to not only try to convince students that they are the wrong gender, but also to hide it from their parents, will be defeated.