Thomas More Society recently won a significant parental rights case at the U.S. Supreme Court.
On March 2, 2026, the United States Supreme Court handed down a groundbreaking ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta, vacating the Ninth Circuit’s stay of a district court injunction and holding that California’s secret gender transition policies in schools likely violate parents’ constitutional rights. The 6-3 decision is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation, vindicating the rights of mothers and fathers to know what is happening with their own children.
Their summary of the case highlights seven key quotes from the per curiam opinion. Quotes 2, 3, and 4 are especially relevant to what’s happening in public libraries.
2. “[These] policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” — Per Curiam, p. 5
In one sentence, the Court rejected California’s paternalistic premise that the state knows better than Mom and Dad. The Court affirmed what every parent already knows, namely, it is parents—not bureaucrats or school administrators—who are the primary protectors of their children. California’s policy framework treated parents as threats to be managed rather than partners.3. “The intrusion on parents’ free exercise rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.” — Per Curiam, p. 5
This point is enormously significant from a legal standpoint. Last term, in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Court held that when a school district introduced LGBTQ+ storybooks into its elementary curriculum and then denied parents the ability to opt their children out of that instruction, strict scrutiny applied under the Free Exercise Clause—regardless of whether the policy was neutral and generally applicable. The Court effectively put states on notice—if storybooks can trigger strict scrutiny, secretly transitioning a child certainly does!4. “Parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’” — Per Curiam, p. 5
Drawing on a century of established precedent stretching back to Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) and Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court reaffirmed the bedrock constitutional principle that the right to raise one’s children belongs to parents, not the government. This forceful restatement of substantive due process protections for parental rights is a landmark moment, especially significant given recent debates about the scope of that doctrine.
Like every other institution, libraries ought to recognize the primacy of parents in a child’s upbringing and reflect that principle in their policies and procedures.
But rather than providing a safe environment where children can freely explore the shelves, many libraries instead place the burden on parents, who have to watch their kids like hawks just to make sure they don’t encounter material that will corrupt them for good.
Currently the Salado Public Library is a minefield for parents who don’t want their children sexualized, and some local families stay away from the library for this very reason.
While the library does provide ways for parents to monitor their child’s activity, those were largely forced on them by the passage of SB 412 last year. And the library undercuts its stated commitment to parental control in subtle and not-so-subtle ways:
- It purchases pro-trans books aimed at little kids and puts them in the children’s section.
- It purchases sexually explicit books and puts them in the YA section. (American Library Association defines YA as 12+.)
- It allows minors ages 14 and up to use library computers with no internet filter.
- It has put up a Pride Month display at the entrance to the YA section for two years running, and last year adopted an anything-goes display policy to ensure this continues.
- It overrides parental concerns in reconsideration requests, deeming age-inappropriate books to be age-appropriate.
- It advertises itself as a “safe space” for LGBTQ individuals, raising the legitimate question of whether library staff discuss sexuality and gender with minor patrons.
- It allows staff to lobby against board candidates who want to enact common-sense policies to protect children.
All of this is improper, to say the least, for a taxpayer-funded institution like a public library. If Salado residents did not pay a sales tax to fund the library and it was a for-profit or volunteer operation, it could do whatever it wanted (within the bounds of the law).
But when the library—by its very nature as a public entity—makes local residents complicit in the sexualization of children, pushback is to be expected.
We love the library and want to see it thrive. We also want it to be a safe place for the entire community—especially our kids.
Comments are closed.