The Center for American Liberty filed an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to reject California’s latest attempt to keep parents in the dark about their children’s social gender transitions at school.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Mirabelli, California argues that schools may still conceal a child’s social transition from parents if the parents do not specifically ask about it or if school officials determine that the parents pose a risk of child abuse.

Our brief argues that California gets it wrong.

Parents have a fundamental right to make important decisions concerning the care and upbringing of their children. That means parents are entitled to notice and an opportunity to opt out before a school facilitates their child’s social transition. If a child requests a social transition and the parents say “no,” the parents generally have the right to make that decision.

The State can, of course, intervene when a child is genuinely at risk of abuse but school officials cannot simply decide on their own that parents are abusive and then use that determination to cut them out of their child’s life. Absent an emergency, the government must make the appropriate showing before a judge through a process that gives parents notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Our brief also pushes back against California’s suggestion that a parent who refuses to consent to a child’s social transition can be considered abusive on that basis. Disagreeing with a child’s request to socially transition does not automatically make a parent abusive, and redefining “abuse” to encompass that disagreement would give government officials sweeping power to circumvent parental rights.

Finally, California argues that its interest in eradicating discrimination against transgender-identifying children can justify overriding parents’ rights. But a generalized government interest cannot automatically overcome a fundamental constitutional right. If California seeks to override a parent’s decision, our brief argues that it must make an individualized showing that doing so is justified for that particular child.

At its core, this case is about who gets to make consequential decisions for children: their parents or government officials.

Schools do not get to secretly assume the role of parents simply because officials believe they know better.

Parents have a right to know. Parents have a right to decide. And we will continue fighting to protect those rights.