Mirabelli v. Bonta: Slowing the Charge Towards an Education Hellscape
By Senior Online Editor
Published February 22, 2026.
Imagine a public school where religiously raised students are treated differently. These students from religious households are banished to recreation rooms, libraries, and other isolating settings while their peers continue to learn in classrooms. As a result, the religiously raised students are educationally disadvantaged, and could have trouble competing with their peers in the real world. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently attempted to slow the Supreme Court’s charge towards this education hellscape.
In the summer of 2025, the United States Supreme Court decided a case titled Mahmoud v. Taylor.[1] In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed schools threaten parents’ religious rights when they “substantially interfere with[ ]religious development” by creating a “hostile” environment that “pressure[s religiously raised students] to conform”.[2] The Supreme Court has used this standard in a previous case.[3] Departing from the previous case, the Supreme Court announced that the standard was met when an elementary school used storybooks positively depicting LGBTQ+ narratives in its curriculum.[4] The Supreme Court had not applied the standard to a situation like this before.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court did not say that the storybooks expressly insult or even reject any religions.[5] Allegedly, the schools instructed teachers “to reprimand any children who disagree[d]” or “express[ed] a degree of religious confusion”.[6] The Supreme Court decided that because this situation effectively normalized same-sex marriage and nonconforming gender identity, the curriculum directly contradicted certain parents’ religious teachings, thereby creating a “hostile” environment, pressuring students to conform in a way that threatened parents’ religious rights.[7]
Once the Supreme Court determined that the storybook curriculum substantially interfered with certain parents’ religious rights, the Supreme Court strictly reviewed the school’s curriculum and procedures.[8] The school said it did not inform parents that it was using the storybooks, or give the parents an opportunity to opt their students out because it wanted to avoid disrupting the students’ learning environment.[9] The Supreme Court admitted that this was a good reason.[10] Nonetheless, the Supreme Court decided that this reason and other reasons the school gave were not good enough to stop religious parents from opting their students out of the storybook curriculum.[11] The Supreme Court seemed to effectively instruct all United States public schools to inform parents when they use LGBTQ+ curriculum, and to give parents the opportunity to opt their students out.[12]
Mahmoud v. Taylor appeared to give parents immense control over school curriculum and student expression. Parents seemed to possess broad power to smite any school curriculum or policy simply by claiming it normalized ideas which contradicted their religion. Despite this impression, a few courts situated under the Supreme Court have attempted to constrain the effect of Mahmoud v. Taylor.[13]
In a different case, titled Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit (where Arizona is located) Court of Appeals refused to apply the standard from Mahmoud v. Taylor.[14] In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a California law and certain school policies unlawfully violated parents’ religious rights.[15] According to the case, the California law and school policies required teachers and staff to obtain student permission before talking to the student’s parents about the student’s nonconforming gender identity.[16] The law and policies made an exception for emergencies.[17]
When considering this situation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals abstained from applying the Mahmoud v. Taylor standard.[18] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that the Mahmoud v. Taylor standard only applies when:
Schools create a very coercive environment by encouraging teachers to reprimand “young students” that disagree or express confusion; and
Schools normalize teachings that contradict religious teachings in their curriculum.[19]
Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Mahmoud v. Taylor standard did not apply to the law and policies related to gender identity because, unlike in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the schools were not normalizing LGBTQ+ narratives for impressionable “young children,” and the law and policies were not related to school curriculum.[20]
At the time that I am writing this, the parents and teachers opposing the California law and school policies have asked the Supreme Court to vacate the stay granted in Mirabelli v. Bonta.[21] This means that the parents and teachers asked the Supreme Court to block the California law and school policies that require student permission before school staff discloses the student’s nonconforming gender identity. In asking, the parents and teachers insisted that Mahmoud v. Taylor applies to all school policies, not just some curriculum in very coercive environments.[22] The Supreme Court has not yet replied to the parents and teachers. Thus, in the Ninth Circuit (where Arizona is located) Mahmoud v. Taylor only applies to certain curriculum in a coercive environment.
Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals limited the Mahmoud v. Taylor standard, the rule is still a behemoth of discord. It is unclear what kind of curriculum could substantially interfere with students’ religious upbringings. This is an issue because Mahmoud v. Taylor commanded public schools to inform parents if they are teaching such curriculum. As a result of the uncertainty, schools might refrain from teaching curriculum to avoid accidentally disobeying the Supreme Court’s command.
Prevalent to this forum, the Public Religion Research Institute compiled statistics that could suggest a correlation between certain religious views and climate change denial.[23] Do these statistics reflect religious teachings? Could this mean that religiously raised students will be excused from the classroom while their classmates learn about environment preservation?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to sanctify such a crusade. For now, religiously raised students remain in the classroom alongside their peers. Religiously raised students are permitted to learn so long as schools do not teach curriculum in a manner that coerces these students into questioning their parents’ beliefs.
*This blog post is catered to people with limited legal knowledge. Some legal concepts are simplified for readability and accessibility to a general audience.
[1] Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025).
[2] Id. at 549–50.
[3] Id.
[4] Id. at 550.
[5] Id. at 533–35.
[6] Compare the teachers’ instructions enumerated on page 536 of Mahmoud v. Taylor and the description of the instructions on page 555–56.
[7] Mahmoud, 606 U.S. at 550.
[8] Id. at 564–69.
[9] Id. at 566.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 569.
[12] Id. at 566–67.
[13] E.g., Mirabelli v. Bonta, No. 25-8056, 2026 WL 44874, at *3 (9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2026); see also, e.g., Doe No.1 v. Bethel Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 23-3740, 2025 WL 2453836, at *7 n.3 (6th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025).
[14] Mirabelli v. Bonta, 2026 WL 44874, at *3.
[15] Id. at *1.
[16] Id. at *3 (pointing out that the lower court had not “clearly identif[ied] the set of policies”).
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Application to Vacate Stay, Mirabelli v. Bonta, No. 25A810 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2026) (Kagan, J., in chambers).
[22] Id.
[23]The Faith Factor in Climate Change: How Religion Impacts American Attitudes on Climate and Environmental Policy, PRRI (Oct. 4, 2023) https://prri.org/research/the-faith-factor-in-climate-change-how-religion-impacts-american-attitudes-on-climate-and-environmental-policy/.