Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > talk.politics.drugs > #7437

Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER"

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a810_b97d.pdf

> The Ninth Circuit granted defendants’ motion to stay the
> injunction pending appeal.
> The Ninth Circuit also expressed doubts about the Dis-
> trict Court’s decision on the merits. On the free exercise
> issue, it relied on a not-precedential Sixth Circuit decision
> and brushed aside Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U. S. 522
> (2025), as “a narrow decision focused on uniquely coercive
> ‘curricular requirements.’ ” App. 10a–11a (citing Doe No. 1
> v. Bethel Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2025 WL 2453836,
> *7 (CA6, Aug. 26, 2025)). The Ninth Circuit expressed
> skepticism about the parents’ and teachers’ Fourteenth
> Amendment due process claim because it viewed those
> claims as seeking to expand the protection afforded by es-
> tablished precedent.

> When the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction, the par-
> ents and teachers filed this application seeking vacatur of
> the Ninth Circuit’s stay pending appeal.
> II

> We grant the application and vacate the stay with respect
> to the parents because this aspect of the stay is not “justi-
> fied under the governing four-factor test.” Alabama Assn.
> of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
> U. S. 758, 763 (2021) (per curiam) (citing Nken v. Holder,
> 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009)).
> Likelihood of success on the merits. We conclude that the
> parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed
> on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim. Califor-
> nia’s policies likely trigger strict scrutiny under that
> provision because they substantially interfere with the
> “right of parents to guide the religious development of their
> children.” Mahmoud, 606 U. S., at 559 (citing Wisconsin v.
> Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972)). 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 poli-
> cies violate those beliefs and “impos[e] the kind of burden
> on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable.” 606
> U. S., at 550. Indeed, the intrusion on parents’ free exercise
> rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender
> transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ sto-
> rybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in
> Mahmoud. See id., at 563.


Few people reading this on Usenet itself will be minors.  But it will be 
echoed on modern social media.  Trans minors are being told that school 
is not a safe place for them, period.  This is controlling school staff, 
controlling children/minors by their phobe parents - this is war, 
Supreme Court, fuck you to the justices voting for the order.


> California’s policies will likely not survive the strict scru-
> tiny that Mahmoud demands. The State argues that its
> policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and
> privacy. But those policies cut out the primary protectors
> of children’s best interests: their parents. See Troxel v.
> Granville, 530 U. S. 57, 68–69 (2000) (plurality opinion).
> California’s policies also appear to fail the narrow-tailoring
> requirement. The State’s interest in safety could be served
> by a policy that allows religious exemptions while preclud-
> ing gender-identity disclosure to parents who would engage
> in abuse. For these reasons, the parents who object to the
> California policies on free exercise grounds are likely to suc-
> ceed on the merits.
> The same is true for the subclass of parents who object to
> those policies on due process grounds. Under long-estab-
> lished precedent, parents—not the State—have primary
> authority with respect to “the upbringing and education of
> children.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534–
> 535 (1925); accord, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399–
> 400 (1923). The right protected by these precedents in-
> cludes the right not to be shut out of participation in deci-
> sions regarding their children’s mental health. Parham v.
> J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602 (1979). Gender dysphoria is a con-
> dition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental
> health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dys-
> phoria at school, California’s policies conceal that infor-
> mation from parents and facilitate a degree of gender tran-
> sitioning during school hours. These policies likely violate
> parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of
> their children.


This is literal fascism in plain text.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Back to talk.politics.drugs | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

"SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-03-02 20:39 -0500
  Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-03-02 20:46 -0500
    Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" Starboard <right@side.com> - 2026-03-08 08:05 +0000
      Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-03-08 13:38 -0400
      Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-04-01 14:44 -0700
        Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-04-01 20:11 -0400
          Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-04-01 18:17 -0700
            Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-04-02 08:50 -0400
              Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-04-02 08:27 -0700
                Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-04-02 11:40 -0400
                Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-04-02 09:31 -0700
                Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-04-02 13:04 -0400
    [Spam] Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" Rey <invalid@dont-email.me> - 2026-04-01 06:46 +0200
      Re: [Spam] Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-04-01 08:59 -0400
        Re: [Spam] Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-04-01 14:04 -0700
          Re: [Spam] Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-04-01 16:56 -0500
            Re: [Spam] Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-04-01 20:11 -0400
          Re: [Spam] Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-04-01 20:09 -0400
            Re: [Spam] Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER" Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-04-01 18:09 -0700

csiph-web