Whether the Supreme Court should vacate a Ninth Circuit stay of a permanent injunction against California's student gender policies. These policies require school employees to use students' preferred names and pronouns and to obtain student consent before disclosing a child's gender identity to parents. The Court must determine if the stay is justified under the governing four-factor test.

• Parents argue the policies violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by preventing them from guiding the religious development of their children.
• Parents argue the policies violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding them from decisions regarding their children's mental health and upbringing.
• Teachers argue they are being compelled to participate in the implementation of the State's policies against their will.
• Petitioners seek to vacate the stay to restore the District Court's injunction.

• The State argues that the policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy.
• The State contends that the District Court's injunction was overly broad and granted relief to class members lacking Article III standing.
• The State argues that the District Court failed to perform the "rigorous analysis" required for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
• The State asserts that the parents' claims do not expand established precedent in a way that justifies the injunction.

• The Court granted the application to vacate the stay for the parents but denied it for the teachers.
• The Court applied the four-factor test for stays as set forth in *Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs.* and *Nken v. Holder*.
• Regarding the Free Exercise Clause, the Court found the policies likely trigger strict scrutiny because they interfere with the "right of parents to guide the religious development of their children," citing *Mahmoud v. Taylor* and *Wisconsin v. Yoder*.
• The policies likely fail strict scrutiny because they "cut out the primary protectors of children's best interests: their parents," invoking *Troxel v. Granville*.
• The Court noted the policies are not narrowly tailored because the State's interest in safety could be served by allowing religious exemptions while precluding disclosure to parents who would engage in abuse.
• Regarding the Due Process Clause, the Court relied on *Pierce v. Society of Sisters* and *Meyer v. Nebraska* to conclude parents have primary authority over the "upbringing and education of children."
• The Court further cited *Parham v. J. R.* to hold that the right to direct upbringing includes the right not to be "shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children's mental health."
• The Court found that the denial of constitutional rights during the appellate process constitutes irreparable harm under *Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo*.
• The Court determined that the balance of equities favors the parents, as the injunction promotes child safety by guaranteeing fit parents a role in consequential decisions.