Golden State groomers were dealt a devastating blow on Monday after the Supreme Court sided with parents challenging school policies in California that restrict when educators may disclose changes to a student’s name or pronouns, handing parental rights advocates an early but significant victory in a closely watched culture-war dispute.

In an unsigned 'shadow docket' order, the justices restored a lower court’s injunction blocking enforcement of policies that prevent teachers from informing parents when their child socially transitions at school. The Court said the parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the policies violate their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

“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,” the Court wrote. “California’s policies violate those beliefs.”

The decision does not definitively resolve the constitutional question. Instead, it reinstates a preliminary order issued by a federal district judge while the case proceeds through the appellate process. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, emphasized in a concurring opinion that the ruling is “preliminary,” underscoring that the Court’s assessment that the parents are “likely” to prevail does not constitute a final merits determination.

The case centers on whether public school officials may withhold information from parents about a student’s gender identity or use of different names and pronouns at school. California officials have argued that such policies are designed to protect student privacy and safety, particularly for LGBTQ youth who may face difficult home environments.

“The State argues that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy,” the Court acknowledged. “But those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

At least five members of the Court’s conservative majority voted to grant the emergency relief, though Justice Neil Gorsuch did not publicly disclose his vote. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would have gone further by also siding with teachers who argue their own constitutional rights are implicated.

The Court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the majority for acting through the Court’s emergency docket before the lower courts had completed full review.

“This case cries out for reflection and explanation,” Kagan wrote, arguing that the legal questions are “novel” and deeply contested. She warned that the Court appeared “impatient” to intervene before the appellate process had run its course.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta had urged the justices to deny the emergency request, contending that the district court’s order would require “instant, dramatic changes” to school policies and could cause irreversible harm to students whose gender identity is disclosed without their consent.

“For many students, the consequences of compelling the disclosure of confidential information about their gender identity would be irreversible,” Bonta’s office wrote in court filings.

The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for further proceedings on the merits. After that court issues a decision, the dispute could return to the Supreme Court for full briefing and oral argument — setting the stage for a potentially sweeping ruling on the scope of parental rights and student privacy in public schools.