Citizens United

02/02/2026 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 02/02/2026 13:36

CU Files Amicus Brief in Mirabelli v Bonta (Parental Rights)

I
N
T
HE
Supreme Court of the United States
________________ No. 25A810________________ E
LIZABETH
M
IRABELLI
,
et al.
,Applicants,v.R
OB
B
ONTA
, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California,
et al
.,Respondents.________________
On Emergency Application to Vacate Interlocutory Stay Order Issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
________________
BRIEF
AMICUS CURIAE
OFAMERICA'S FUTURE, CITIZENS UNITED,PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF THE U.S., PUBLIC ADVOCATE FDN.,U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,ONE NATION UNDER GOD FOUNDATION,FITZGERALD GRIFFIN FOUNDATION,RESTORING LIBERTY ACTION COMMITTEE, ANDCONSERVATIVE LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUNDIN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS
________________ M
ICHAEL
B
OOS
Washington, D.C. 20005J
OSEPH
W.
M
ILLER
Fairbanks, AK 99708J
AMES
N.
C
LYMER
Lancaster, PA 17603
J.
M
ARK
B
REWER
Johnson City, TX 78636R
ICK
B
OYER
Lynchburg, VA 78636W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
*J
EREMIAH
L.
M
ORGAN
W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
,
P.C.370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4Vienna, VA 22180-5615(703) 356-5070Fax (703) 356-5085 [email protected]*Counsel of RecordAttorneys for
Amici Curiae
January 21, 2026
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageT
ABLE OF
A
UTHORITIES
.................................................iiI
NTEREST OF THE
A
MICI
C
URIAE
..........................................1S
TATEMENT OF THE
C
ASE
...............................................1S
UMMARY OF
A
RGUMENT
................................................4A
RGUMENT
I.T
HE
P
ARENTAL
E
XCLUSION
P
OLICY
I
S
U
NCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER
Y
ODER
AND
M
AHMOUD
..................................................5A.Principles Drawn from
Mahmoud v. Taylor
.....................7B.Principles Drawn from
Wisconsin v. Yoder
......................8II.T
HE
F
REE
E
XERCISE
C
LAUSE
P
ROVIDES
M
UCH
B
ROADER
P
ROTECTIONSTHAN THE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
U
NDERSTANDS
............................10III.C
ALIFORNIA
'
S
P
ARENTAL
E
XCLUSION
P
OLICY
A
LSO
V
IOLATES THE
E
STABLISHMENT
C
LAUSE
.........................................13A.Transgenderism Is at Its Core Religious.......................13B.This Court Has Long Banned Proselytizing in GovernmentSchools..................................................17C. Defendants' Transgender Agenda Is Not Neutral towardReligion.................................................20C
ONCLUSION
........................................................22
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
HOLY BIBLE
Genesis
1:27-28...................................................13, 17
Matthew
19:4.......................................................14
Mark
10:6..........................................................14
Ephesians
4:25......................................................18
Ephesians
6:4.......................................................17
CONSTITUTION
Amendment I....................................................10, 19
STATE CONSTITUTION
Constitution of Virginia, Section 16.....................................10
STATUTES
Virginia Declaration of Rights..........................................10Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (Oct. 31, 1785)...................11, 12
CASES
Abington School District v. Schempp
, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)................18, 22
Edwards v. Aguillard
, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)...............................19
Engel v. Vitale,
370 U.S. 421 (1962).....................................18
Everson v. Bd. of Education
, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)............................19
Lee v. Weisman
, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).....................................19
Mahmoud v. Taylor
, 606 U.S. 522 (2025)..............................4-8, 14
McCollum v. Board of Education
, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)......................18
Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area Sch. Dist
., 145 S. Ct. 14 (2024)..............................................6
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
, 268 U. S. 510 (1922)...........................5, 6
Reynolds v. United States
, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)...........................10-12
Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe
, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)......................19
Stone v. Graham
, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)....................................18
Torcaso v. Watkins
, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)...............................12, 13
Wallace v. Jaffree,
472 U.S. 38 (1985)....................................18
Welsh v. United States,
398 U.S. 333 (1970)...............................13
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).....8, 18
Wisconsin v. Yoder
, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).............................5, 6, 8, 9
MISCELLANEOUS
"Ishtar,"
Britannica
..................................................14J. Cahn, The Return of the Gods (2022)..................................14
iiiS. Cho, C. Laub & S. Wall, "Beyond the Binary: A Tool Kit for Gender IdentityActivism in Schools,"
Gay Straight Alliance Network
(2004)............21R. George, "Gnostic Liberalism,"
First Things
(Dec. 2016)................15, 16I. Haworth, "How trans activism became the new religion of the left,"
New York Post
(Mar. 18, 2023)....................................17K. Hayes, "Gender Ideology's True Believers" Quillette (May 19, 2022).........17J. Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance" to the Honorable General Assemblyof the Commonwealth of Virginia (June 20, 1785)....................11C. Paglia, Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism (2018)............22T. Romano, "Laverne Cox: 'I Absolutely Consider Myself a Feminist,'"
DameMagazine
(June 1, 2014).........................................16G. Sanchez, "Unearthing Mesopotamia's Forgotten Past: The Vibrant Intersection of Religion and LGBTI+ Diversity"...................14, 15"School Success and Opportunity Act (Assembly Bill 1266) Frequently AskedQuestions,"
California Department of Education
(last reviewed: February 29, 2024)..............................................2J. Tanis, Transgender: Theology, Ministry and Communities of Faith (2003)....16
INTEREST OF THE
AMICI CURIAE
1
Amici curiae
America's Future, Citizens United, Public Advocate of theUnited States, Public Advocate Foundation, U.S. Constitutional Rights LegalDefense Fund, One Nation Under God Foundation, Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation,and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund are nonprofit organizations,exempt from federal income tax under either section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of theInternal Revenue Code. Restoring Liberty Action Committee is an educationalorganization. These entities,
inter alia
, participate in the public policy process,including conducting research, and informing and educating the public on theproper construction of state and federal constitutions, as well as statutes related tothe rights of citizens, and questions related to human and civil rights secured bylaw. Some of these
amici
have filed
amicus
briefs in this Court in cases addressingsimilar issues.
See Parents Protecting v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin
,No. 23-1280, Brief
. (July 8, 2024);
Mahmoud v. Taylor
, No. 24-297, Brief
. (Oct.16, 2024) and Brief
(Mar. 10, 2025).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In January 2016, the California Department of Education ("CDE")promulgated a Legal Advisory together with an accompanying list of FAQs,instructing local school districts as to how California's anti-discrimination statutes
1
It is hereby certified that no counsel for a party authored this brief in wholeor in part; and that no person other than these
amici curiae
, their members, or theircounsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.
2should be applied to schoolchildren identifying as "transgender." The FAQs pageinstructed that "schools
must
consult with a transgender student to determine whocan or will be informed of the student's transgender status, if anyone, including thestudent's family." Further, that "schools are
required
to respect the limitations thata student places on the disclosure of their transgender status, including not sharingthat information with the student's parents" except in the "very rare" situationswhere "there is a specific and compelling 'need to know.'"
2
Teachers "were presented with a list of seven students transitioning genders,six of whose parents were unaware.... Their school required them to use one set of names and pronouns in class and another when calling parents." Application forStay ("App.") at 2 (footnote omitted). California's actions were challenged by twoteachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, from the Escondido Union SchoolDistrict ("EUSD").
Mirabelli v. Olson
, 691 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (S.D. Cal. 2023)("
Mirabelli I
"). Believing "this constituted systematic deception [and] forced [them]to lie to parents," the teachers challenged the guidelines, raising both free speechand free exercise challenges. App. at 2.The defendants are the president and members of the EUSD Board of Education, the president and members of the California State Board of Education,
2
California Department of Education
(last reviewed: Feb. 29,2024).
3the state superintendent of public instruction, and the California Attorney General.
Mirabelli v. Olson
, 761 F. Supp. 3d 1317, 1321 (S.D. Cal. 2025) ("
Mirabelli II
")The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the guidelines onFree Exercise grounds. The court found that "EUSD has not demonstrated anarrowly tailored policy, tailored so as not to unnecessarily impinge on theplaintiffs' free exercise rights." Thus, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on themerits.
Mirabelli I
at 1218. The court also found that the plaintiffs met the otherfactors for injunctive relief.
Id.
at 1219.As the case progressed, other teachers and two sets of parents joined the suitas co-plaintiffs.
Mirabelli II
at 1321 n.1. After the additional plaintiffs joined, thedefendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). With regard to the parents, thedistrict court ruled that "the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parentsmust preponderate and a claim that school policies trench on parents' rights statesa plausible claim for relief."
Id.
at 1332-33. Regarding the teachers, the court ruledthat "the non-disclosure policies substantially burden their First Amendment rightto the free exercise of religion."
Id.
at 1333.In October 2025, the district court permitted certification of a class consistingof all "employees who object to complying with Parental Exclusion Policies" and all"legal guardians who object to having Parental Exclusion Policies applied againstthem and have children who are attending California public schools."
Mirabelli v.Olson
, 350 F.R.D. 138, 143 (S.D. Cal. 2025) ("
Mirabelli III
").
4Later that month, the district court granted summary judgment and entereda permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs. The court ruled that "Such stateeducation policies [as the Parent Exclusion Policy] substantially interfere with theFirst Amendment rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of theirchildren."
Mirabelli v. Olson
, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264381, at *60 (S.D. Cal. 2025)("
Mirabelli IV
"). The court further found that "religious teachers face an unlawful choicebetween sacrificing their faith and sacrificing their teaching position.... '[W]hen aregulated party cannot comply with both federal and state directives, theSupremacy Clause tells us the state law must yield.'"
Id.
at *78-79. Accordingly,the district court granted summary judgement to all plaintiffs. The defendants then requested a stay pending appeal, which the courtdenied.
Mirabelli v. Olson
, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 269580 (S.D. Cal. 2025).Days later, the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay.
Mirabelli v.Bonta
, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33773 (9th Cir. 2025). The Ninth Circuit thenconverted the administrative stay into a stay pending appeal, ruling that thedistrict court erred in finding in favor of the parents' substantive due process rights.
Mirabelli v. Bonta
, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 403 (9th Cir. 2026).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Only seven months ago, in
Mahmoud v Taylor
, 606 U.S. 522 (2025), thisCourt affirmed the authority of parents to decide whether their children would be
5subjected to a LGBTQ curriculum. It was confirmed that parents are entitled toknow what their children would be taught and given the right to "opt-out." Here,the Ninth Circuit has sanctioned a decision by the California State school systemthat strips parents of the right to know that their children are questioning theirsexual identity, and authorizes the school system to deceive the parents of suchchildren. As discussed below, the Ninth Circuit has entered an order that could beviewed as open defiance of
Mahmoud
;
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
, 268 U. S. 510(1922);
Wisconsin v. Yoder
, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), as well as other decisions of thisCourt. California is in open violation of not just the Free Exercise rights of parentsand their children, but violates the Establishment Clause as it actually establishes transgenderism, a doctrine with ancient pagan religious roots, requiring thisCourt's intervention.
ARGUMENTI.THE PARENTAL EXCLUSION POLICY IS UNCONSTITUTIONALUNDER
YODER
AND
MAHMOUD
.
California's attempt to seize control of the most intimate moral decisions of children from their parents, and not only transfer these decisions to the school butalso conceal them from the parents, is an egregious assault on Free Exercise. AsJudge Benitez explained in
Mirabelli IV
:Long before Horace Mann advocated in the 1840's for a system of common schools and compulsory education, parents have carried outtheir rights and responsibility to direct the general and medical careand religious upbringing of their child. "The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern forthe nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the
6parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyonddebate as an enduring American tradition."
Wisconsin v. Yoder
, 406U.S. 205, 232 ... (1972). It is a right and a responsibility that parentsstill hold. [
Mirabelli IV
at *5.]Last year in
Mahmoud
, this Court reaffirmed its view in
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
, 268 U.S. 510 (1922), where this Court had enunciated the historic "liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children undertheir control."
Id
. at 534-35. "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in thisUnion repose," the Court explained, "excludes any general power of theState to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instructionfrom public teachers only." ... The Court rejected the premise that thechild was merely a "creature of the State"; rather, "those who nurturehim and direct his destiny have the
right
, coupled with the high
duty
,to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." [
Mahmoud
at586 (quoting
Pierce
at 535) (Thomas, J., concurring) (emphasis added)].California's Parental Exclusion Policy constitutes a direct frontal assault bythe state on that fundamental liberty of parents. And the Ninth Circuit's decision isa rejection of this Court's warning in
Mahmoud
. Perhaps when this Court recentlydeclined certiorari in
Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area Sch. Dist
.,145 S. Ct. 14 (2024), the Ninth Circuit felt emboldened to restrict
Mahmoud
to itsfacts, just as the Fourth Circuit in
Mahmoud
tried to do to this Court's
Yoder
decision. This Court should go beyond vacating the stay, and should instead grant certiorari before judgment, vacate, and remand with directions to strike downCalifornia's Parental Exclusion Policy.
7
A.Principles Drawn from
Mahmoud v. Taylor
.
Last year, this Court recognized the Free Exercise rights of parents againstcontrary transgender teachings in schools:The practice of educating one's children in one's religious beliefs, likeall religious acts and practices, receives a generous measure of protection from our Constitution.... And this is not merely a right toteach religion in the confines of one's own home. Rather, it extends tothe choices that parents wish to make for their children outside thehome.... [T]he right of parents "to direct the religious upbringing of their" children would be an empty promise if it did not follow thosechildren into the public school classroom. [
Mahmoud
at 547.]
Mahmoud
broke no new ground, as this Court noted that: "[w]e have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religiousupbringing' of their children."
Espinoza v. Mont. Dept. of Revenue
, 591U.S. 464, 486 ... (2020) ... And we have held that those rights areviolated by government policies that "substantially interfer[e] with thereligious development" of children.
Id.
at 218.... Such interference, wehave observed, "carries with it precisely the kind of objective danger tothe free exercise of religion that
the First Amendment wasdesigned to prevent
."
[
Mahmoud
at 546 (emphasis added).]The Ninth Circuit paid no attention to this Court's warning
against an"alarmingly narrow rule" that sees "the Free Exercise Clause's guarantee asnothing more than protection against compulsion or coercion to renounce orabandon one's religion."
Id.
at 558. In the district court, "[t]he State Defendants argue[d] that their policies donot amount to government coercive ... or restraining conduct, so they do not offendthe Constitution."
Mirabelli IV
at *25. The Circuit Court seemed to agree, despitethis Court having instructed in
Mahmoud
:
8[w]e reject this
chilling vision of
the power of the state to stripaway the critical right of parents to guide the religiousdevelopment of their children
.
Yoder
and
Barnette
3
embody a verydifferent view of religious liberty, one that comports with thefundamental values of the American people. [
Mahmoud
at 559(emphasis added).]By denying parents information as to what the child does while in the care of the state, the Ninth Circuit removed the power of choice from parents. The statearrogantly assumes that it cares more about children than their parents do, butthen leaves the consequences for the parents to live with, as teachers andcounselors come and go while parents remain. As Applicants point out, "the schools'facilitation of a secret gender transition for young children, which may havepermanent and life-altering consequences, is orders of magnitude worse thanthe burdens imposed in
Mahmoud
and
Yoder
." App. at 19.As this Court made clear: "[a] classroom environment that is welcoming toall students is something to be commended, but such an environment cannot beachieved through hostility toward the religious beliefs of students and theirparents."
Mahmoud
at 568.
B.Principles Drawn from
Wisconsin v. Yoder
.
Applicants have amply demonstrated that the challenged policy violates theFree Exercise Clause, based on the application here of the following principlesdrawn from
Yoder
:
3
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
9
•
Parents have special authority to control the education of theirchildren, even when attending government schools, on matters whichviolate religious beliefs and morals, and particularly with respect toimpressionable and vulnerable young children (
Yoder
at 211-14);
•
Compulsory education laws, combined with school support of "gendertransitions" without parents' knowledge, subject young children toeducation at odds with the family's religious views (
id.
at 211); and
•
California's actions substantially interfere with the rights of parents totheir free exercise of religion (
id.
at 218-19).
Yoder
clearly established that the religious upbringing of children is at thecore of the freedoms protected by the Free Exercise Clause. The
Yoder
parentsshared the concerns of Applicants here: object[ing] to the high school, and higher education generally, becausethe
values they teach
are in
marked variance
with Amish valuesand the Amish way of life; they view secondary school education as animpermissible exposure of their children to a "
worldly" influence inconflict with their beliefs
. [
Yoder
at 210-11 (emphasis added).] In
Yoder
, it was not a coercive requirement to change beliefs that offendedthe Free Exercise Clause, but a requirement to expose children to "worldly"religious values "at marked variance" with those of the parents. And, as here, the
Yoder
Court understood that forced high school attendance "places Amish childrenin an
environment hostile
to Amish beliefs."
Id.
at 211 (emphasis added).
10
II. THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE PROVIDES MUCH BROADERPROTECTIONS THAN THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNDERSTANDS.
Although some seem to believe that, so long as a person can pray andworship in his own way, the Free Exercise Clause is satisfied, the free exercise of religion is actually a jurisdictional barrier on the authority of government tointrude on an area of life where duties are owed only to God - a barrier herebreached by the state.The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." The Free Exercise Clause embodiesJames Madison's revolutionary ideal that government has
no jurisdiction
orauthority whatsoever to indoctrinate Americans with respect to
matters of conscience
, as they are
duties owed only to God
, such as their view of transgender issues.In
Reynolds v. United States
, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), this Court also viewed theVirginia Declaration of Rights as the ideological precursor to the Free ExerciseClause.
Id.
at 162-63. Noting that "'religion' is not defined in the Constitution,"this Court looked to the definition in the Declaration of Rights.
See id.
Section 16of the Declaration of Rights declared that
religion
is:
the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction,not by force or violence
. [Constitution of Virginia, Section 16,reprinted in ABA Foundation, Sources of Our Liberties (1978) at 312(emphasis added).]
11The
Reynolds
Court recognized that "religion" was exactly as Madisondefined it, a subject area that "was not within the cognizance of civil government."
Reynolds
at 163. The Court explained that this
jurisdictional principle
wasdetailed in James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, submitted to theVirginia Assembly in 1785, some nine years after the Declaration of Rights, insupport of Thomas Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. Quotingfrom the Declaration, Madison wrote these words:[W]e hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that
Religion
or
the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it
, can be directed only by
reason and conviction
, notby
force or violence
." [citing the Virginia Declaration of Rights.] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and
conscience
of every man; and it is the right of every man to exerciseit as these may dictate.... We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion,
no man's right is abridged by
the institution of
CivilSociety
and that
Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance
.
4
Four months later, the General Assembly passed Jefferson's "Act forEstablishing Religious Freedom." In the preamble, as the
Reynolds
Court noted,this same jurisdictional principle was reaffirmed.
See Reynolds
at 163. Thepreamble read:Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that
all attemptsto influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or bycivil incapacitations
... are a departure from the plan of the Holyauthor of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose
4
J. Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance" to the Honorable GeneralAssembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (June 20, 1785), reprinted in 5 TheFounders' Constitution at 82 (item # 43) (P. Kurland & R. Lerner, eds., U. of Chi.:1987) (emphasis added) (hereinafter The Founders' Constitution).
12not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almightypower to do....
5
Accordingly, the
Reynolds
Court incorporated Madison's definition of "religion" as the best expression of the intent of the Framers of the Free ExerciseClause.While the Ninth Circuit may view its policy on so-called transgenderstudents as being purely secular, for the reasons discussed in Section III,
infra
,transgenderism is a set of teachings on moral topics falling squarely in the area of conscience and religious belief. The Parental Exclusion Policy prefers the state'sfavored religious beliefs above those not only of parents and children who follow thetraditional religions of Christianity and Islam, for example, but also of many whofollow no organized religion, including agnostics and atheists. The Free Exercise of Religion
does not protect religious people
; rather, it protects a sphere of ourlives - termed "
religion
" - from any governmental intrusion. That area of "religion" describes all matters that are matters of conscience - such as our view of moral issues - which are areas where no government may proselytize or coerce. As this Court has recognized, even those who do not accept the traditionalidea of a "God" may nonetheless have beliefs that are religious in nature. "Among
religions
in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered abelief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture,
Secular
5
Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (Oct. 31, 1785), reprinted in 5 TheFounders' Constitution at 84 (item #44) (emphasis added).
13
Humanism
and others."
Torcaso v. Watkins
, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n.11 (1961)(emphasis added). If an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs that are purelyethical or moral in source and content but that nevertheless imposeupon him a duty of conscience..., those beliefs certainly occupy in thelife of that individual "a place parallel to that filled by ... God" intraditionally religious persons.... [H]is beliefs function as a religion inhis life.... [
Welsh v. United States,
398 U.S. 333, 340 (1970).]
III.CALIFORNIA'S PARENTAL EXCLUSION POLICY ALSO VIOLATESTHE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
Although the parties and the courts below focused on the Free ExerciseClause, this case requires the Court's intervention because California's policy alsoviolates 80 years of this Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence. If this Court'sEstablishment Clause jurisprudence prevents teaching Christian doctrine
against
transgender doctrine, then it most certainly also prevents schools from inculcatingtransgender doctrine, particularly behind the backs of parents.
A.Transgenderism Is at Its Core Religious.
It is a core principle of Christianity that mankind was created in the image of God, and was created in two binary sexes which are not interchangeable, for thespecific purpose of reproducing and continuing the species.
•
Genesis
1:27-28: "So God created man in his own image, in the imageof God created he him; male and female created he them. And Godblessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, andreplenish the earth, and subdue it."Jesus Himself answered any suggestion that God's design might somehow bemutable by human wish:
14
•
Matthew
19:4: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye notread, that he which made them at the beginning made them male andfemale."
•
Mark
10:6: "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them maleand female.'"The Bible's view of transgenderism is clear. It is a denial of God's createdorder and purposes. Transgenderism also assaults the beliefs of Islam, as the
Mahmoud
plaintiffsnoted, by "encourag[ing] young children to question their sexuality and gender ...and to dismiss parental and religious guidance on these issues."
Mahmoud
at 540.But transgenderism itself also has ancient religious roots. Many of itsproponents have embraced what was a foundational principle of early paganreligions. One of the "gods" of the pagan world was Ishtar, the "goddess of war andsexual love."
See
"Ishtar,"
Britannica
. "An ancient Mesopotamian tablet records ...[Ishtar saying] 'When I sit in the alehouse, I am a woman, and I am an exuberantyoung man.'" J. Cahn, The Return of the Gods (2022) at 118. The goddess Ishtarhad summertime festivals and parades. "The parades of the goddess featured mendressed as women, women dressed as men, each dressed as both, male priestsparading as women, and cultic women acting as men. They were public pageantsand spectacles of the transgendered, the cross-dressed, the homosexual, theintersexual, the cross-gendered."
Id
. at 181. The worship of Inanna/Ishtar played a significant role in ancientMesopotamian society. Temples dedicated to her were centers of cultural and religious life, where her followers sought her favor andguidance. In these sacred spaces, individuals from all walks of life
15came together, transcending social hierarchies and gender norms. Itwas within the realm of Inanna/Ishtar's worship that diverseexpressions of gender and sexuality found acceptance and celebration. The presence of ... individuals who existed outside the traditionalmale-female binary, within the temples of Inanna/Ishtar is atestament to the inclusivity of her worship and the recognition of gender diversity in ancient Mesopotamia.
6
Transgenderism also has roots in the ancient religious belief of Gnosticism. As Princeton Professor Robert George notes, ancient Gnosticism: was an understanding of the human being ... that sharply divides thematerial or bodily, on the one hand, and the spiritual or mental oraffective, on the other. For Gnostics, it was the immaterial, themental, the affective that ultimately matters. Applied to the humanperson, this means that the material or bodily is inferior - if not aprison to escape, certainly a mere instrument to be manipulated toserve the goals of the "person," understood as the spirit or mind orpsyche.
7
Following in this Gnostic tradition, transgenderism believes that "nodimension of our personal identity is truly determined biologically. If you feel asthough you are a woman trapped in a man's body, then you are just that: a('transgender') woman."
Id.
[F]or the neo-Gnostic, the body serves at the pleasure of the consciousself, to which it is subject, and so mutilations and other procedurespose no inherent moral problem.... At the same time, the neo-Gnosticinsists that surgical and even purely cosmetic changes aren't necessaryfor a male to be a woman (or a female a man). The body and itsappearance do not matter, except instrumentally. Since your body isnot the real you, your (biological) sex and even your appearance neednot line up with your "gender identity." [
Id.
]
6
Pride.
7
R. George, "Gnostic Liberalism,"
First Things
(Dec. 2016).
16Christianity rejects both ancient Gnosticism and its modern descendanttransgenderism. "Christianity's rejection of body-self dualism answered thechallenge to orthodoxy posed by what was known as 'Gnosticism.'"
Id.
Totransgenderism, Gnosticism's modern iteration, Christianity counters that "[i]f weare body-mind (or body-soul) composites and not minds (or souls) inhabitingmaterial bodies, then respect for the person demands respect for the body, whichrules out mutilation and other direct attacks on human health."
Id.
Numerous transgender advocates have put their beliefs into Gnostic terms.
8
Justin Sabia-Tanis writes, "I have heard a number of trans folks state that, forthem, transition is primarily a spiritual process.… For some of us ... transitioningis a time of deepening spirituality and a journey to come home to ourselves in body,mind, and spirit."
9
Similarly, "Patrick Califia, an ordained minister in theFellowship of the Spiral Path, notes: 'My patron goddesses kept telling me that itdidn't matter, whether I lived as a man or a woman, that they didn't care.… And if I wanted to try living as a man, they thought that was trippy, and they'd go alongfor the ride…. I feel that getting more honest with myself and taking this risk hasmade me stronger spiritually.'"
Id
. at 131. Perhaps unavoidably then, the currentpolitical debate over transgenderism has taken on distinctly religious overtones.
8
T. Romano, "Laverne Cox: 'I Absolutely Consider Myself a Feminist,'"
DameMagazine
(June 1, 2014).
9
J. Tanis, Transgender: Theology, Ministry and Communities of Faith at130 (2003).
17When Florida recently passed a law prohibiting genital alteration surgeries onminors, President Biden called it "sinful."
10
As numerous writers from both the political left and right have noted, thosewho question the transgender orthodoxy are hounded and attacked with a vigorhistorically seen in religious attacks against heresy. Author Kathleen Hayes notes:[If] trans children's parents ... do not immediately "affirm" their child'sform of self-identification, activists will urge not only the child, butalso professionals and institutions, to regard the parents asreactionary and toxic.
Many schools obligingly don't tell parentsthat their child has "come out" as transgender and has a newname
.... If the parent fails to comply, the child is encouraged todeclare the parent a transphobe and cut relations.... [
T]he prevailingattitude of treating even mildly cautious parents as the enemysuggests a truly cultish milieu
.
11
B.This Court Has Long Banned Proselytizing in GovernmentSchools.
This case itself highlights the necessarily religious implications of thetransgender debate. The Applicant parents seek to fulfill the Biblical mandate toparents to "bring [their children] up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
Ephesians
6:4. They believe, and wish to teach to their children, that "God createdman in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female createdhe them."
Genesis
1:27. The Applicant teachers seek to obey the Biblical command,
10
NewYork Post
(Mar. 18, 2023).
11
K. Hayes, "Gender Ideology's True Believers,"
Quillette
(May 19, 2022)(emphasis added).
18"[w]herefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for weare members one of another."
Ephesians
4:25. Meanwhile, California schools have a very different belief - and state lawimposes this belief on the Applicant parents and teachers. The religious conflict isglaring.Under this Court's jurisprudence, when compulsory public schools affirmsome religious beliefs while disparaging others, an Establishment Clause violationoccurs. Merely putting the imprimatur of the state in favor of one religious belief over another is sufficient. Consider this line of cases:
•
In
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
, 319 U.S. 624(1943), this Court banned government schools compelling children tosalute the flag and pledge allegiance regardless of the particularreligious views of the child or the sincerity with which they are held.
•
In
McCollum v. Board of Education
, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), the Courtstated that compulsory, tax-supported public schools could not enablesectarian groups to give religious instruction to public school studentsin public school buildings.
•
In
Engel v. Vitale,
370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court ruled that studentsin government school could not be required to recite an official stateprayer,
even if students may remain silent or be excused
, andthe prayer was denominationally neutral.
•
In
Abington School District v. Schempp
, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), the Courtruled that school boards many not require passages from the Bible beread or the Lord's Prayer be recited,
even if students may beexcused from attending or participating
.
•
In
Stone v. Graham
, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the Court prohibited posting acopy of the Ten Commandments purchased with private contributionson the wall of school classrooms.
•
In
Wallace v. Jaffree,
472 U.S. 38 (1985), the Court struck down a statelaw authorizing a one-minute period of silence in public schools formeditation and voluntary prayer.
19
•
In
Edwards v. Aguillard
, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), this Court struck downa Louisiana law requiring public schools that taught the theory of evolution to also teach the theory of creation.
•
In
Lee v. Weisman
, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), including clergy to offerprayers at a public school graduation ceremony was found to violatethe Establishment Clause.
•
In
Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe
, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), this Courtstruck down a policy permitting student-initiated, student-led prayerat graduations and football games, although the prayers were requiredto be "nonsectarian" and "non-proselytizing." In the Establishment Clause context, this Court has been crystal clear thatno coercion need be shown whatsoever. Even when children could be excused,proselytization of all sorts was banned by this line of cases. Students who soughtprotection from prayer, Bible reading, the Ten Commandments, and even a momentof silence, or even hearing a prayer were protected. Indeed, in
Everson v. Bd. of Education
, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), this Court madeclear that the First Amendment "
requires the state to be a neutral
in itsrelations with groups of religious believers and non-believers."
Id.
at 18 (emphasisadded). This Court nonetheless famously declared that:The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment meansat least this.... Government can[not] ... pass laws which aid onereligion, aid all religions, or
prefer one religion over another
.... Notax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support anyreligious activities ... whatever form they may adopt to teach orpractice religion.... [
Id.
at 15-16 (emphasis added).]Teaching children about sexual practices deemed sinful in multiple religioustraditions is not purely secular. California's law directly discriminates against the
20religious beliefs of the Applicants, instead favoring the state's preferred beliefs. Thus, it is barred by this Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
C. Respondents' Transgender Agenda Is Not Neutral towardReligion.
Respondents' position on these thorny religious questions is anything butneutral. California is not just supportive of one side in a religious-cultural war; it isalso belligerent. As Applicants note, the Attorney General's position is little shortof militant. On his "LGBTQ Discrimination Rights" page, he advises schoolchildren:Your school, whether public or private, doesn't have the right to "out"you as LGBTQ+ to anyone without your permission, including yourparents.... [E]ven if you are "out" about your sexual orientation orgender identity at school, if you're not "out" to your parents at home,and you can reasonably expect that they're not going to find out, thenschool staff can't tell your family that you are LGBTQ+ without yourpermission.
12
He goes on to add, "[y]ou have the right to refuse and prosecute conversion therapyproviders in California. Conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth is illegal inCalifornia."
Id.
As Applicants note, the California Department of Education "FrequentlyAsked Questions" page likewise promises students: A transgender or gender nonconforming student may not express theirgender identity openly in all contexts, including at home.... The rightof transgender students to keep their transgender status private isgrounded in California's antidiscrimination laws as well as federal and
12
"LGBTQ+ Discrimination Rights," California Office of the AttorneyGeneral, 10-Plt.Exs-2383-89, 2474, 2481-85 (https://bit.ly/49ayGrt).
21state laws. Disclosing that a student is transgender without thestudent's permission may violate California's antidiscrimination law ...and may violate the student's right to privacy. [Appendix toApplication at 104a.]The CDE's page offers several "other resources" links, each of which takessides firmly against the religious beliefs of Applicants. One such "resource" is awebsite called "Beyond the Binary: A Tool Kit
for Gender Identity Activism
inSchools" (emphasis added). That "tool kit" approvingly highlights a personaltestimonial from "Caleb Ryen," a student who "transitioned to male." Ryendiscusses the school's effort in getting the student a private bathroom, stating that"[t]he school benefits from not having to deal with crazy conservative parentsflipping out."
13
Contrast the militancy of the California schools with this Court's earlierstatement in 1985 when it struck down an Alabama statute authorizing publicschool teachers to hold a moment of silence for "meditation or voluntary prayer." This Court ruled that "whenever the State itself speaks on a religious subject, one of the questions that we must ask is '
whether the government intends to conveya message of endorsement or disapproval of religion
.'"
Wallace
at 60-61(emphasis added). Here, California's promotion of one religious belief over anotheris blatant, intentional, and systemic.
13
Gay Straight Alliance Network
(2004).
22In the light of these precedents, California's Parental Exclusion Policy is apainfully clear Establishment Clause violation. Although the policies this Courthas struck down may have promoted Christian beliefs, California's policy is thereverse, promoting beliefs at sharp odds with Christianity, Islam, and otherhistorically significant religious traditions.
Abington
promised that "[t]he government is neutral, and, while protectingall, it prefers none, and it disparages none."
Abington
at 215. California's policyutterly destroys
Abington
's promise and effects an unconstitutional establishmentof religion under this Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence. As professor, writer, feminist, and student of the history of sex and culture,Camille Paglia, has explained: "[T]ransgender phenomena multiply and spread in'late' phases of culture, as religious, political, and family traditions weaken andcivilizations begin to decline."
14
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should construe this application as apetition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, grant review, vacate the NinthCircuit's interlocutory order staying the district court's injunction, and remand tostrike down the California policy.
14
C. Paglia, Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism at 237-38(2018).
23Respectfully submitted,M
ICHAEL
B
OOS
C
ITIZENS
U
NITED
1006 Pennsylvania Ave. SEWashington, DC 20003J
OSEPH
W.
M
ILLER
L
AW
O
FFICES OF
J
OSEPH
M
ILLER
,
LLCP.O. Box 83440Fairbanks, AK 99708J
AMES
N.
C
LYMER
C
LYMER
M
USSER
&
S
ARNO
, P.C.408 West Chestnut StreetLancaster, PA 17603
J.
M
ARK
B
REWER
209 N. Nugent Ave.Johnson City, TX 78636W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
*J
EREMIAH
L.
M
ORGAN
W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
,
P.C.370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4Vienna, VA 22180-5615(703) 356-5070Fax (703) 356-5085 [email protected]*Counsel of RecordR
ICK
B
OYER
I
NTEGRITY
L
AW
F
IRM
P.O. Box 10953Lynchburg, VA 24506Attorneys for
Amici
Curiae
January 21, 2026
Citizens United published this content on February 02, 2026, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on February 02, 2026 at 19:36 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]