3Stories - March 9, 2026

In California, parental rights have been under assault, and one particular law allows public schools in the state to keep information about a student's so-called "gender transition" secret from his or her parents.

That has now been placed on hold by the U.S. Supreme Court; Worthy News and The Center Square reported:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of plaintiffs in a lawsuit against a California law that allowed public schools to conceal a student’s “gender transitions” from their parents, a policy SCOTUS ruled likely violates the First and Fourteenth amendments.

Two teachers filed suit against the Escondido Unified School District in San Diego County, as well as the California Department of Education and state Attorney General Rob Bonta, as the article notes, "after they were denied a religious accommodation from school policies that required staff to use students’ preferred pronouns..." The law "also required the teachers withhold information about a child’s gender identity from parents."

The high court, in its 6-3 ruling, said: "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. The parents who object to the California policies on free exercise grounds are likely to succeed on the merits. The same is true for the subclass of parents who object to those policies on due process grounds.”

The Kansas Legislature overrode a veto several weeks ago by Governor Laura Kelly of a bill, SB 244, that would protect private spaces and require birth certificates to be issued based on biological sex.  And, already opponents of the legislation have filed suit.

The Kansas Reflector provides the update: "Kansans who held driver’s licenses with a gender marker that didn’t match their sex at birth were told their licenses were immediately invalidated and government leaders statewide were told they had to immediately enforce the bathroom portion of the bill."  The article noted:

Kansans won’t know until at least Tuesday if a judge will delay implementation of the state’s new “bathroom law,” but a concession by Attorney General Kris Kobach means key components of the law can be delayed until March 26.

Douglas County District Judge James McCabria heard arguments Friday about Senate Bill 244, the controversial new law that forces people to use bathrooms in government buildings and gender markers on driver’s licenses based on sex assigned at birth.

Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Sara Beth Nolan, quoted at an ADF website, stated in response to the bill: "Women and girls shouldn’t be forced to sacrifice their privacy and safety in the name of promoting gender ideology. Allowing men to invade women’s most intimate spaces—including changing rooms and restrooms—compromises their dignity. SB 244 ensures that the private spaces of women and girls in government buildings are not open to men. It rightly prioritizes privacy and safety over ideology..."

The legislative body of the state of Virginia, the General Assembly, approved the placement of a pro-abortion amendment on the ballot this year.  This follows amendments passed in Kansas and Ohio, among other states, and rejected in Florida and other states last fall.

But a member of the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, Charla Bansley, has challenged the ballot measure, which, according to Liberty Counsel, aims to establish a 'fundamental right to reproductive freedom' in the Virginia Constitution."  The Christian legal organization, which represents Bansley, states that she "...claims the ballot initiative is invalid after discovering Virginia’s House of Delegates missed several key procedural steps mandated by the Virginia Constitution before the amendment can go before the voters, such as distributing the amendment to all circuit court clerks statewide and posting it for public inspection three months prior to the 2025 House of Delegates election."

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, stated: “Virginia’s House Joint Resolution 1 cannot legally appear on the ballot. This measure is invalid because the General Assembly advanced it to a second legislative vote without completing the constitutionally mandated notice and posting requirements that must occur after its first passage."