California’s effort to shield the decisions of transgender students in public schools from the eyes of prying parents remains on hold this week after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found a state law designed to protect them was likely unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court previously upheld a temporary block on the law after it was challenged, sending the case back to the appellate court. The 9th Circuit’s ruling Thursday kept the block in place, saying the state cannot enforce the measure while the court battle over its legality continues.

Passed in 2024, the California law known as Assembly Bill 1955 was intended to prevent school employees from notifying parents about a student’s gender expression without their consent. Boosters of the law say it protects vulnerable students from “forced outing” to families who may be hostile to their trans and nonbinary children. Opponents say it compels schools to “mislead” parents about their children and leaves them “shut out” of critical decisions.

The 9th Circuit had previously allowed the law to stand while the state fought an injunction from a district court in Santa Ana.

Legal experts said the appellate court’s latest decision appeared to expand “parental rights” — a move with potentially significant implications for all U.S. families, including the roughly 72.5 million American children who are not transgender.

Mary Ziegler, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law and an expert on American parental rights laws, said the ruling was “arguably significantly more extensive than the Supreme Court has spelled out.”

“Trans issues are hot-button issues … but this kind of parental rights litigation has much broader ambitions, some of which have nothing to do with LGBTQ people,” she said. “There’s an ambition to transform parental rights period, and the easiest way to do that is to focus on trans issues.”

Quoting extensively from the related March Supreme Court decision, the 9th Circuit panel found that parents “have an affirmative constitutional right” to be told if their children swap names or pronouns, change how they dress or otherwise alter their gender expression at school.

The panel of appellate judges said they heard no arguments that the California families who brought the challenge “are ‘unfit parents’ who present a risk of abuse if they are provided with information about their children exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria.”

Conservatives, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, have criticized the California law for meddling in the affairs of families.

“Under California’s policy, parents will be excluded — perhaps for years — from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing,” Barrett wrote in a concurrence to the Supreme Court’s decision in March. “Thus, the parents are likely to suffer irreparable harm if California enforces its policy while this litigation winds its way through the courts.”

The court’s liberal justices disagreed, finding the decision premature.

“I have no doubt that parents have rights, even though unenumerated, concerning their children and the life choices they make,” Justice Elena Kagen wrote in her dissent. “California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line.”

There are multiple similar suits currently en route to the high court, each challenging local or state policies that prevent schools from disclosing certain information about children’s gender identity and expression to their parents. Many, including the two related California cases, are championed by conservative legal activists expressly in the name of parents’ rights.

Thursday’s 9th Circuit ruling was a “major victory,” said America First Legal, an advocacy organization co-founded by senior White House aide Stephen Miller, which helped argue the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision emerged from a suit brought on behalf of two California teachers by the Thomas More Society, a conservative public interest firm named for the 16th century Catholic saint.

Ziegler and other experts warned a future decision could echo through the legal landscape, transforming how courts approach issues as disparate as school vaccine mandates and whether parental discipline warrants the intervention of state child protective services.

“Reasonable people can disagree about what involvement parents should or shouldn’t have in this context,” Ziegler said of the California trans rights law. “But that’s not what this is about. It’s about this complete overhaul of the power parents have. And children are vanishing from the story.”

Current plans for flagship telescopes in the 2040s are focused on answering a simple question – are we alone? Our best telescopes to date, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have only given us tantalizing glimpses into the atmospheres or other worlds, but not enough to truly determine whether or not life as we know it exists there. Astronomers have been waiting for technology to catch up to their dreams of what is possible in terms of new types of telescopes, and recently the W.M. Keck Institute for Space Studies released a report detailing the Large Interferometer For Exoplanets (LIFE) mission, which they hope will help provide a definitive answer to that simple question.

Exoplanets are hard to take pictures of. For one thing – they are typically very close to their host star, which is also billions of times brighter than them. One solution to that problem is to use a device called a coronagraph, which physically blocks the star’s light, allowing the telescope to capture only (reflected) light coming from the planet itself. This is the technique planned for use in NASA’s Habitable World Observatory (HWO), and it’s effective at capturing visible and ultraviolet light.

But there’s another type of light that’s particularly useful for hunting habitable exoplanets – mid-infrared. At these wavelengths, which monitor emitted heat, the contrast between the planet and star drops dramatically, allowing telescopes to directly observe (non-reflected) thermal light from the planet directly. But perhaps more importantly, the mid-infrared is a gold mine of potential spectral biosignatures, including ozone, methane, water, carbon dioxide, and even phosphine, a potential “capstone” biosignature in some contexts.

Fraser interviews Dr. Daniel Angerhausen about the LIFE telescope.

Building a system to capture this light is no easy feat, though. The JWST is already designed to capture infrared light, but even it was too small to effectively isolate exoplanets at the resolution required to provide a detailed picture of their atmosphere. In fact, any space telescope big enough to do so would be too bulky to fit on a rocket. So the LIFE designers suggest an alternative – formation-flying null interferometry.

Essentially they want to launch multiple spacecraft and fly them in a precise, untethered formation tens to hundreds of meters apart. They then beam the light they collect to a central collecting spacecraft, allowing it to do some fancy optical tricks to both “null” the light from the central star while also boosting the heat signature of the planet itself.

That sounds great in theory, but in practice it’s been notoriously tricky to build. LIFE isn’t the first proposed space interferometer – in fact two missions this century (Terrestrial Planet Finder-Interferometer from NASA and Darwin from ESA) have already been cancelled because the technology just wasn’t ready yet. According to the new report, though, our engineering skills have recently caught up with our imagination.

Fraser talks about the limits of the HWO

Breakthroughs in astrophotonics have shrunk what would once be a bench-sized optical instrument down to the form factor of a microchip. And the commercial space launch industry is continuing to push down launch costs for all sorts of missions. The report notes that formation flying, one of the trickiest parts of the proposed LIFE mission, is planned for a few technology demonstration missions, such as SEIRIOS and SunRISE, which will fly CubeSats in formation, in the coming years.

As the technology matures, the likelihood of the LIFE mission actually being technologically feasible improves. But what about that other life hunting mission – the HWO? The report points out that LIFE and HWO are actually great tag-team partners and look at completely separate pieces of the same puzzle. HWO will focus on visible/ultraviolet light, while LIFE will measure thermal emission in the mid-infrared to derive a planet’s temperature, radius, and atmospheric composition. Combining data from both missions is critical to eliminate “false positives” where something that might look like a biosignature is actually caused by an abiotic process.

HWO is planned to launch in the 2040s, but is still undergoing its design phase. LIFE is also in development, and while the two may launch in similar timeframes, LIFE’s primary goal is to provide complementary data to HWO. The report points out that, in order to spread the funding around evenly, the LIFE project should be an international collaboration rather than reliant on a single funding source.

If the LIFE project is funded, hopefully HWO will be too. But even if not, we are finally getting to a point where we can build a system that can help us find the proof that we are not alone, and if that isn’t inspiring enough to fund these programs, it’s unclear what would be.

Learn More:

S. P. Quanz et al – Exploring Exoplanets with Interferometry

UT – The Next Generation LIFE Telescope Could Detect Some Intriguing Biosignatures

UT – The LIFE Telescope Passed its First Test: It Detected Biosignatures on Earth.

UT – Future Telescopes Could Detect Life Managing their Planet Atmospheres