California Ordered to Pay $4.52 Million in Legal Fees
A federal court mandated that California pay $4.52 million in legal fees following a Supreme Court decision that halted a state policy. This policy previously allowed schools to keep students’ gender transitions secret from their parents. The ruling was announced on Monday.
Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued the order to compensate lawyers from the Thomas More Society, a conservative law firm representing the plaintiffs.
“Awarding such a substantial fee sends an unmistakable message to state governments and school districts across the nation: if they violate constitutional parental rights, they’ll pay for it,” stated Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Litigation Director at the Thomas More Institute.
The lawsuit was initially filed in 2023 by two Christians educators, and later, in 2024, additional parents joined in, voicing concerns about the policy’s impact on their children. Among the plaintiffs are devout Catholic parents John and Jane Poe, who alleged that their middle school daughter was treated as male for nearly a year without their knowledge.
Attorneys from the Thomas More Society took the issue to the Supreme Court after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused a lower court’s decision to block California’s policy. On December 22, 2025, Judge Benitez issued a permanent injunction against the policy, but a federal appeals court lifted that injunction just weeks later, allowing the policy to remain in schools while litigation continued.
The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, ruled 6-3 in favor of the parents. This reinstated a district court ruling that suspended the transgender policies in California schools. The court noted that parents who object on religious grounds are likely to succeed in court and may suffer irreparable harm unless the policy is stopped during a drawn-out litigation process.
The majority opinion referred to a related case from June 2025, where a court sided with religious parents suing a Maryland school board for not allowing their young children to opt-out of LGBTQ+ curriculum.
The court concluded that when parents seek religious exemptions, there is a strong likelihood they will succeed based on their claims related to the Free Exercise Clause. California’s policy is seen as significantly interfering with a parent’s right to guide their child’s religious upbringing.
They added that the state’s interest in student safety could be balanced with respecting parental authority, suggesting alternative policies that offer exemptions for religious beliefs while safeguarding sensitive situations.
Judge Benitez commented that California’s ongoing legal maneuvers, including multiple motions to dismiss and appeals, demonstrated a commitment to resisting the case. He emphasized that the time spent by lawyers and plaintiffs was necessitated due to California’s litigation strategy.
Because of this, Benitez noted he had to increase compensation significantly, labeling California’s legal actions a “rare enhancement.” Breen emphasized that California’s refusal to honor family rights has financial repercussions for its citizens.
As of now, California continues to pursue litigation, recently filing a motion to amend the injunction reinstated by the Supreme Court. Attempts to receive comments from California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office were not met with a response at publication time.
This case is titled Mirabelli v. Bonta, no. 23-CV-768 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
