2026年3月2日 美国东部时间晚间11:30 / 路透社
（配图说明） 2026年1月13日，美国华盛顿特区，示威者在美国最高法院外手持跨性别旗帜，当天大法官们预计将听取两起案件的口头辩论，这两起案件涉及执行共和党支持的州法律，禁止公立学校跨性别运动员参加女子体育队。路透社/凯文…（全文未完）
- 摘要
- 争议焦点： 州隐私与反歧视法律
- 法律内容： 保护学生不披露性别认同
- 原告： 基督教教师和家长挑战相关法律
3月2日（路透社）——美国最高法院周一驳回了一系列加州法律，这些法律原本允许公立学校在未经跨性别学生同意的情况下，限制向其父母分享学生性别认同信息。此举是对挑战这些保护措施的基督教家长的重大胜利。
大法官们批准了原告方的紧急申请，恢复一名法官的裁决，认定涉案的隐私与反歧视措施违反了美国宪法第一修正案（宗教自由）和第十四修正案（平等保护）所赋予他们的宗教及父母权利。目前诉讼仍在继续，此前联邦上诉法院已暂停该裁决的执行。
路透社《Inside Track》通讯是您了解全球体育重大事件的必备指南，点击此处注册。
最高法院的三位自由派大法官对周一的裁决表示异议。
加州的这起诉讼是全美范围内关于保护跨性别和非二元性别学生隐私的诸多争议之一。最高法院还在考虑是否受理一起针对马萨诸塞州某公立学区的诉讼，该学区教师和官员曾支持学生的性别认同。2024年，最高法院曾驳回威斯康星州和马里兰州类似的诉讼挑战。
拥有6:3保守派多数席位的最高法院，多次被要求就唐纳德·特朗普政府及共和党主导的州限制跨性别者权利的举措作出裁决。
最高法院去年维持了田纳西州对跨性别未成年人性别肯定医疗护理的禁令，并支持特朗普政府禁止跨性别者服役的政策。1月13日，法院听取了爱达荷州和西弗吉尼亚州禁止跨性别运动员参加女子体育队的州法律相关辩论，保守派大法官似乎准备支持这些限制措施。
加州法律包含多项条款，其中包括该州宪法规定的隐私权。州政府曾表示，当跨性别学生因担心敌意、排斥甚至暴力而反对将其性别认同告知父母或监护人时，这些条款可适用。
2023年，原告方起诉这些条款违宪，称相关措施要求公立学校（原文此处截断，剩余内容无法翻译）
说明：
- 原文末尾“facilitate”后内容缺失，导致最后一段翻译不完整。
- 图片链接、日期格式、标点符号均严格遵循原文排版。
- 所有专有名词（如“First Amendment”译为“第一修正案”，“gender identity”译为“性别认同”）均采用通用标准译名。
- 若需完整翻译，请补充原文剩余部分。
US Supreme Court blocks California privacy protections for transgender students
March 2, 2026 11:30 PM UTC / Reuters
Demonstrators carry a transgender flags outside the U.S. Supreme Court, on the day justices are expected to hear oral arguments in two cases concerning efforts to enforce Republican-backed state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools, in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 13, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin… Read more
- Summary
- State privacy and anti-discrimination laws at issue
- Laws protected students against disclosing gender identity
- Christian teachers and parents challenged the laws
March 2 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court blocked on Monday a series of California laws that can limit the sharing of information with parents about the gender identity of transgender public school students without the child’s permission, handing a victory to Christian parents who challenged these protections.
The justices granted an emergency request by the challengers to reinstate a judge’s ruling that the privacy and anti-discrimination measures at issue undermined their religious and parental rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First and 14th Amendments, while litigation continues. A federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold.
The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide to the biggest events in global sport. Sign up here.
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices dissented from Monday’s decision.
The California lawsuit is one of many disputes concerning efforts to protect the privacy of transgender and gender-nonconforming students playing out across the United States.
The Supreme Court is also considering whether to take up a lawsuit against a Massachusetts public school district over actions by teachers and officials to support the gender identity of students. The court in 2024 turned away similar challenges in Wisconsin and Maryland.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has been asked repeatedly to rule on efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration and Republican-led states to restrict the rights of transgender people.
The Supreme Court last year upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors and also let Trump ban transgender people from the military. It heard arguments on January 13 concerning state laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female sports teams, with the conservative justices appearing ready to uphold those restrictions.
California law contains several provisions, including the right to privacy under the state constitution, that the state has said could apply when transgender students object to having their gender identities disclosed to their parents or guardians, sometimes out of fear of hostility, rejection or even violence.
The challengers in a 2023 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the provisions said the measures require public schools to facilitate
节点运行失败
发表回复