By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

The classroom is often a place of discovery and growth. For many students, it is also a place where they seek safety. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States began looking at a case that could change how much privacy students have in these spaces. This case focuses on teacher outing rules. These rules require teachers to tell parents if a student changes their name or pronouns at school. While some people see this as a matter of parental rights, others see it as a threat to student safety. (edweek.org)

At the center of this battle is a case called Mirabelli v. Bonta. It arrived at the Supreme Court as an emergency application in early 2026. This case did not appear out of thin air. It is part of a long struggle between the rights of parents and the privacy of children. This conflict has roots that go back over one hundred years. To understand what is happening today, people must look at the legal history of the American school system. (libertyjusticecenter.org)

The idea that parents have a primary right to raise their children is a bedrock of American law. This concept took shape in the 1920s through two major court cases. In 1923, the Supreme Court heard Meyer v. Nebraska. The case involved a law that banned the teaching of foreign languages to children. The Court decided that the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment includes the right of parents to bring up their children as they see fit. This ruling limited the power of the state to control the minds of the youth. (iahe.net)

Two years later, the Court reinforced this idea in Pierce v. Society of Sisters. The state of Oregon tried to force all children to attend public schools. The Supreme Court struck down this law. The justices famously wrote that the child is not the mere creature of the state. These two cases established the "parental rights" framework that lawyers still use today. They argue that parents must be in charge of important decisions regarding the upbringing of their children. (libertyjusticecenter.org)

However, the history of these rights is complex. In the middle of the 20th century, some people used the call for "parental rights" to resist social change. During the era of segregation, many white parents used this language to fight against integrated schools. They wanted the power to choose "white-only" environments for their children. This history shows that the resilience of families sometimes clashes with the push for equal rights for all. Today, the debate over gender identity in schools mirrors these older arguments about who has the final say in a child’s life.

While parents have rights, students also gained protections over time. In 1974, Congress passed the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, also known as FERPA. This law was originally meant to help parents see school records. It also protected those records from being shared with strangers. As schools moved into the digital age, the definition of what counts as a "record" became more complicated. Information about a student's gender identity is now at the center of this privacy debate. (ed.gov)

The legal right to keep personal secrets from school officials gained ground in the 2000s. In the case of Nguon v. Wolf in 2007, a federal court looked at the privacy of a student's sexual orientation. The court found that students have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Outing a student without a good educational reason could violate their constitutional rights. This established that students are individuals with their own privacy interests. These interests do not disappear just because they are minors. (brennancenter.org)

The 14th Amendment plays a vital role here as well. The principle of Substantive Due Process protects fundamental rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution. This includes the right to personal privacy and bodily autonomy. For many, this is a "bedrock" of civil rights. It has been used to protect interracial marriage and to end school segregation. In the context of "outing" policies, the question is whether a student’s right to privacy outweighs a parent’s right to know. (brennancenter.org)

California has become the primary battleground for these conflicting rights. In July 2024, the state passed the SAFETY Act, also known as AB 1955. This was the first law in the nation to stop school districts from using forced outing policies. The law was a response to several school boards that required teachers to notify parents about changes in student names or pronouns. State leaders argued that these policies protected students from potential harm at home. (ca.gov)

The reaction to AB 1955 was immediate and intense. Several school districts and parents filed lawsuits to block the law. They claimed that the state was interfering with the relationship between parents and children. These parents argued that schools were creating a "zone of secrecy." They believe that if a child is struggling with their identity, the parents are the best people to provide mental health support. (smdailyjournal.com)

Teachers also entered the legal fray. In the case of Mirabelli v. Bonta, two teachers sued because they said the non-disclosure rules violated their religious faith. They argued that being forced to withhold information from parents was a form of "deception." A federal judge initially sided with the teachers. He issued a permanent injunction against California’s rules in early 2026. This set the stage for the current emergency application to the Supreme Court. (libertyjusticecenter.org, edweek.org)

The debate over privacy is not just about rules and regulations. It is about the safety of vulnerable children. Data shows that Black and Brown LGBTQ+ students face higher risks than their white peers. These students often experience a "double burden" of racial bias and identity-based discrimination. For many of them, school is the only affirming space they have. Losing privacy in that space can have devastating consequences. (lalgbtcenter.org)

Research from The Trevor Project shows that Black LGBTQ+ youth are less likely to be "out" to their families. This is often because they perceive a higher risk of being kicked out of their homes. Forced outing can lead to a cycle of homelessness. Currently, LGBTQ+ youth make up 40 percent of the homeless youth population. Black transgender youth are especially vulnerable to this trend. When a school "outs" a student to a non-affirming household, it can break the child's support system entirely. (lalgbtcenter.org)

Furthermore, these policies can lead to "school pushout." This happens when students leave the education system because they feel unsafe or targeted. Students of color already face higher rates of school discipline and suspension. Adding the threat of forced outing makes the school environment even more hostile. The historical factors that have held back Black students are often ignored in these legal battles. Protecting student privacy is therefore a matter of racial and social justice. (brennancenter.org)

When students are forced out of school, the entire country pays a price. Hostile school environments lead to lower graduation rates for LGBTQ+ youth. Currently, about 11.6 percent of these students are projected to drop out of high school. This is double the rate of the general student population. When young people do not finish school, their earning potential drops significantly. This creates a long-term economic burden on the community. (lalgbtcenter.org)

Economists estimate that the loss of productivity from these students costs the U.S. economy over 700 million dollars per graduating class. This loss of talent affects every industry. When racial inequality in education is combined with identity-based exclusion, the damage is even worse. Communities of color lose future leaders and workers who could have contributed to local growth. (lalgbtcenter.org)

Safety in schools is not just a personal issue; it is a public good. Schools that protect the privacy of all students foster a better learning environment for everyone. When students feel safe, they perform better academically. They are more likely to participate in school activities and build healthy relationships. Forced outing rules threaten to turn schools into places of surveillance instead of places of learning. This shift could harm the educational outcomes for an entire generation. (ed.gov)

The Supreme Court is now deciding whether to step into this conflict immediately. The teachers in the California case filed an "emergency application." This is part of what legal experts call the "shadow docket." Unlike regular cases, these are decided very quickly. There are usually no public hearings or oral arguments. The Court often issues these decisions as short, unsigned orders. This process has become more common in recent years. (scotusblog.com)

Many people worry about the lack of transparency in the shadow docket. Because the justices do not provide detailed legal reasoning, it is hard for the public to understand their logic. Social justice advocates are concerned that the Court might make major policy changes without a full review of the facts. If the Court sides with the teachers on an emergency basis, it could effectively end student privacy protections nationwide before a full trial even happens. (scotusblog.com)

The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court has shown a strong interest in religious freedom and parental rights. In 2025, they ruled in favor of parents in Maryland who wanted to opt out of certain curriculum. That case was not about outing, but it showed the Court’s priorities. If the justices apply the same logic to the *Mirabelli* case, they might conclude that a parent’s right to know always comes before a student’s right to privacy. (pacificlegal.org)

The rules governing schools have also been affected by changes in the White House. President Donald Trump is the current president, and his administration has taken a different approach to Title IX. In 2024, the previous administration had issued rules that explicitly protected gender identity in schools. These rules were meant to stop discrimination against LGBTQ+ students. However, those protections were quickly challenged in court. (ed.gov, haywood.edu)

Following the 2025 inauguration, the focus of federal policy shifted back to biological sex at birth. New executive orders have created a legal vacuum. Without strong federal protections, states like California and Florida are moving in opposite directions. This has created a "patchwork" of laws across the country. A student might have privacy rights in one state but lose them completely if they move to another. (edweek.org, haywood.edu)

This volatility makes the role of the Supreme Court even more critical. Schools and teachers are looking for a national standard so they know how to follow the law. However, if the Court sets a standard that ignores student safety, the consequences could be permanent. The balance between the home and the school is delicate. Forcing teachers to act as informants for the state could break the trust that is necessary for education to succeed. (edweek.org)

At the heart of this legal battle is the question of trust. Students need to trust their teachers to provide a safe learning environment. When teachers are forced to disclose private information, that trust is shattered. Many educators worry that these rules will stop students from coming to them for help. If a student is being bullied or struggling with their mental health, they might stay silent to avoid being outed to their parents. (edweek.org)

Historically, the relationship between schools and the community has been built on mutual respect. Schools often act *in loco parentis*, which means they stand in the place of a parent during the school day. However, this role also involves protecting the child. For students in kinship care or foster care, the situation is even more complex. Rules that only recognize traditional biological parents might leave these children without any protection at all. (ca.gov)

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Mirabelli v. Bonta* will have an impact far beyond California. It will signal how much the government values the privacy of the individual student. As the nation watches the shadow docket, the lives of thousands of young people hang in the balance. Maintaining the privacy of students is not just about keeping secrets. It is about acknowledging that every child deserves a space where they can grow and be themselves without fear. (libertyjusticecenter.org, scotusblog.com)

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.