Re: "SUPREME COURT No. 25A810 ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, ET AL. v. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INTERLOCUTORY STAY ORDER"

On 4/1/26 17:11, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2026-04-01 5:44 p.m., Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/26 00:05, Starboard wrote:
>>> On 02 Mar 2026, "Joel W. Crump" <[email protected]> posted some
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a810_b97d.pdf
>>>>
>>>>> The Ninth Circuit granted defendants’ motion to stay the
>>>>> injunction pending appeal.
>>>>> The Ninth Circuit also expressed doubts about the Dis-
>>>>> trict Court’s decision on the merits. On the free exercise
>>>>> issue, it relied on a not-precedential Sixth Circuit decision
>>>>> and brushed aside Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U. S. 522
>>>>> (2025), as “a narrow decision focused on uniquely coercive
>>>>> ‘curricular requirements.’ ” App. 10a–11a (citing Doe No. 1
>>>>> v. Bethel Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2025 WL 2453836,
>>>>> *7 (CA6, Aug. 26, 2025)). The Ninth Circuit expressed
>>>>> skepticism about the parents’ and teachers’ Fourteenth
>>>>> Amendment due process claim because it viewed those
>>>>> claims as seeking to expand the protection afforded by es-
>>>>> tablished precedent.
>>>>
>>>>> When the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction, the par-
>>>>> ents and teachers filed this application seeking vacatur of
>>>>> the Ninth Circuit’s stay pending appeal.
>>>>> II
>>>>
>>>>> We grant the application and vacate the stay with respect
>>>>> to the parents because this aspect of the stay is not “justi-
>>>>> fied under the governing four-factor test.” Alabama Assn.
>>>>> of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
>>>>> U. S. 758, 763 (2021) (per curiam) (citing Nken v. Holder,
>>>>> 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009)).
>>>>> Likelihood of success on the merits. We conclude that the
>>>>> parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed
>>>>> on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim. Califor-
>>>>> nia’s policies likely trigger strict scrutiny under that
>>>>> provision because they substantially interfere with the
>>>>> “right of parents to guide the religious development of their
>>>>> children.” Mahmoud, 606 U. S., at 559 (citing Wisconsin v.
>>>>> Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972)). 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. California’s poli-
>>>>> cies violate those beliefs and “impos[e] the kind of burden
>>>>> on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable.” 606
>>>>> U. S., at 550. Indeed, the intrusion on parents’ free exercise
>>>>> rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender
>>>>> transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ sto-
>>>>> rybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in
>>>>> Mahmoud. See id., at 563.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Few people reading this on Usenet itself will be minors.  But it will
>>>> be echoed on modern social media.  Trans minors are being told that
>>>> school is not a safe place for them, period.  This is controlling
>>>> school staff, controlling children/minors by their phobe parents -
>>>> this is war, Supreme Court, fuck you to the justices voting for the
>>>> order.
>>>
>>> School staff doesn't have any such authority that supercedes parental
>>> rights.  There is no such thing as a "trans" it anyway.  It's just a
>>> social media fad that went out of control.
>>
>>      About a third of a percent of the US population are transgender. 
> 
> That's a third of a percent of Americans which will go on to commit 
> suicide.
> 

	Not if they are properly medicated.