parent

When Tina LaMonica and Warren Wellen purchased their South Pasadena Craftsman home in 2001, the one-car garage dated back to 1917, a time when people parked their narrow Ford Model T cars inside garages like this one.

“We bought it for $650,000,” LaMonica says of the house. “Of course, we could never afford to buy it now.”

The couple moved in when their daughters, Sophie and Ruby Wellen, were little, and their tree-lined street was full of families with young kids who rode their scooters throughout the neighborhood.

“We all grew up together and had block parties,” says Sophie, 30. Now, she adds, “There are no new families moving in. No one left. Why would they?”

Tina LaMonica and Warren Wellen sit on the patio with their daughter, Sophie Wellen, and their dog, Hazelnut, next to the 230-square-foot ADU where Sophie lived for two years. Her younger sister is now living in the ADU.

Music was always a part of their home, Sophie says, thanks to her father, Warren, 65, who is both an attorney and a musician in the alternative rock band Brahms’ Third Racket.

“He plays everything,” Sophie says. “Throughout my entire childhood, he was always making music.”

LaMonica adds, “It can be disruptive.”

So in 2021, the couple pulled together money from different sources, including a line of credit, and turned the garage into a tiny 230-square-foot accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, for Warren to use as a music studio.

“It was intended to be a creative space, not a home,” says LaMonica, 64, who is a commercial real estate broker. “The total cost was around $125,000, including permits, construction and all systems — a significant investment, but one that ended up serving our family in unexpected ways.”

The garage before, left, during, right, and after, below, construction. (Tina LaMonica)

A few months after using his new music studio, Sophie, who had been in law school at the University of Michigan, moved back to Los Angeles after being away for 10 years.

“She wasn’t working right away, and like many new grads, she had student debt and credit card debt from getting through school,” says LaMonica. “Market rent in the Los Angeles area wasn’t realistic, even with a job offer lined up. So, the studio became her first home. It gave her stability and independence during a major transition.”

Sophie, who describes her relationship with her parents as close, says the ADU was always meant to be temporary and she’s grateful for it.

“At 28, I didn’t know where I wanted to live in L.A.,” she says. “I had only grown up in Pasadena, which is a small community. I felt lucky to be able to live in this little house in the back and explore the city to find the right place for me, instead of rushing to grab the first place I could, like so many of my associates had to do. It was right after the bar exam, and I was really stressed.”

The ADU features a Murphy bed and and a nice-sized kitchenette.

The kitchenette has a compact air fryer-toaster oven from Our Place, and a slim, Classic retro-style refrigerator.

After clerking for a judge in Washington, D.C., Sophie’s boyfriend William Lang moved to Los Angeles and joined her and her dog in the ADU, bringing his two cats with him.

“It was a full house,” Sophie says, laughing. “And yes, they were indoor cats! But we made it work. Finding a rental was hard. I couldn’t really afford a nice apartment in L.A. I had to save up and wait until my boyfriend got here so we had two incomes.”

It’s no surprise they felt at home. Although it’s small, the unit is sunny and bright, with a pitched roof and a big picture window overlooking the lush backyard and swimming pool. (The blinds can be closed for privacy.)

There’s a Murphy bed that turns into a love seat when pulled down, which saves space, and classic black-and-white checkerboard porcelain tile from Mission Tile in South Pasadena that gives the living spaces a surprising sense of fun. The unit also has a bathroom with a shower, a closet and a storage nook above the bathroom.

The ADU has room for a desk, flat-screen TV and comfy chair.

There’s also room for a desk, a flat-screen TV on the wall and a comfortable chair. Not having a dining room isn’t a problem because there’s a welcoming patio just outside the French doors, with two chairs, a couch and a coffee table.

“The backyard was our saving grace,” says Sophie. “Most of the time, William sat at the little table. It was cozy and nice. I got to be near my parents, and they got to know my partner better.”

The ADU has a roomy kitchenette with white cabinets and countertops, a compact air fryer-toaster oven from Our Place, and a slim retro-style refrigerator from Unique. “You can bake, broil and fry with the small Wonder Oven,” LaMonica says. “Ruby uses it all the time.” There’s also a mini-split system for heating and cooling, and if needed, a stackable washer and dryer can be added later.

A patio area provides another living space steps outside the ADU.

Soon after Sophie moved out, having lived in the back house for two years, her 27-year-old sister Ruby moved in. “She works in Torrance and can’t afford to rent an apartment close to her job,” her mother says. “The ADU gives her a chance to live affordably, stay safe and be near family, while building financial footing on her own terms.”

LaMonica is happy with the ADU, though she wishes they could have added a second floor, which the city of South Pasadena didn’t allow at the time.

She imagines a future in which one of her daughters lives in the main house, and she and her husband live in the ADU. “I think an ADU is a great long-term solution,” she says. “It keeps people from moving out of California. With an ADU, at least you can keep your family on site.”

In some ways, the small ADU is more than just a solution for young people who can’t afford to live in Los Angeles. A 2025 study found that Los Angeles ranked second among the 50 largest U.S. metros for its share of working adults (ages 25 to 40) living with parents.

Backyard homes can also help people connect with their community.

“The nice thing about the ADU is that it can give you a sense of community that’s hard to find right now because people are so isolated,” says Sophie, who now rents a two-bedroom duplex in Hancock Park with Lang for $4,500 a month. “We’re both lawyers at private law firms and doing well, but I still don’t feel like I could have a child right now and give them the life I want. It’s hard to make big life decisions in L.A., especially if you have student debt. It was really nice to have dinner with my parents every once in a while. They didn’t want William and I to leave.”

The bathroom inside the ADU.

As Southern California gets more crowded and housing costs rise, young people have to look for options different from those their parents had when they were growing up.

LaMonica says she and her husband never thought they would house both daughters in a converted garage. “But in a place like Los Angeles,” she says, “the tiny ADU turned into a flexible and essential lifeline for our family, not just once but twice.”

And maybe one day, Warren will finally get his music studio.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear President Trump’s claim that he has the power to revise the Constitution and to end birthright citizenship for babies born in this country to parents who were here unlawfully or temporarily.

Trump proposed this potentially far-reaching change in an executive order. It has been blocked by judges across the country and has never been in effect.

His lawyers contend they seek to correct a 160-year misunderstanding about the Constitution’s promise that “all persons born” in this country are deemed to be citizens.

The president’s executive order “restores the original meaning of the citizenship clause” and would deny “on a prospective basis only” citizenship to the “children of temporarily present aliens and illegal aliens,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal.

But the first hurdle for Trump and his lawyers may concern the powers of the president.

In February, the court blocked Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs on the grounds the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to impose import taxes.

By comparison, the president has even less power to set the rules for U.S. citizenship. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

After the Civil War, Congress adopted a civil rights act in 1866 that said “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, including Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States … of every race and color.”

To make sure that rule stood over time, it was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. Its opening line says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In 1898, a conservative Supreme Court upheld that rule and affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”

In 1952, when Congress revised the immigration laws, it added the same provision without controversy. Lawmakers set multiple rules for deciding disputes over American parents who live abroad, but the first rule was simple and undisputed.

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the law said.

Critics say Trump’s plan could replace a clear and simple rule with a confusing and complicated one. States would have to look into the history and legal status of a newborn’s parents to decide whether they met the new qualifications.

Until now, a valid birth certificate had been sufficient to establish a person’s U.S. citizenship.

Last week, Trump was urging Senate Republicans to pass a new election law that would require millions of Americans to present a birth certificate as proof of their citizenship if they register to vote or move to a new state.

“Proving citizenship to vote is a no brainer,” the White House said.

This week, however, Trump’s lawyers are urging the court to rule that their birth in this country is not proof of their citizenship.

There is a “logical inconsistency” here,” said Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center.

In the legal battle now before the court, the key disputed phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction.” That has been understood to mean that people within the United States are subject to the laws here, except for foreign diplomats and, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.

But Sauer contends it excludes newborns who are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction” because their parents are in this country unlawfully.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union called this a “radical rewriting” of the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about the parents of a newborn child.

If upheld, this order could apply to “tens of thousands of children born every month, “ they said, “devastating families around the country.” But worse yet, they said, the outcome “would cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations.”

Some legal experts predict the court may rule narrowly and reject Trump’s executive order because it conflicts with federal immigration laws. Such a ruling would be a defeat for Trump, but it could allow Congress in the future to adopt new provisions, including a limit for expectant mothers who enter this country to give birth.

It’s an hour before Monroe High’s baseball team takes infield practice. In the dugout dressed in his uniform, Miguel Gonzalez has his scissors out giving a free haircut to a teammate.

“Ten out of 10,” infielder Alexander Hernandez said when describing Gonzalez’s barber skills.

His pitching skills aren’t bad either. He struck out 12 in six innings in his season debut. He’s 5-0 with a 0.69 ERA. He’s a four-year varsity player for the surprising Vikings, who are 13-1 to start this season under second-year coach Eddie Alcantar.

The fact that Gonzalez is still playing might come as the biggest surprise if you knew all the responsibilities he faces as an 18-year-old.

Alcantar was getting worried last January when Gonzalez didn’t show up for winter workouts.

“I have a rule if you don’t show up for practice, you don’t play,” Alcantar said.

They finally met and Gonzalez revealed he’s been too busy working as a barber. And then came the big news: He’s going to become a father in July.

The Monroe High baseball team is off to an 13-1 start.

(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)

It’s a delicate balancing act between work, school, baseball and the seriousness of being a parent as a teenager.

“I’ve been able to figure scheduling little by little,” Gonzalez said. “I do sleep. Maybe five hours.”

Gonzalez said he worked seven days a week as a barber during the summer. He’s been saving for his future while also making sure he did not have to ask his parents for money. He works weekends and sometimes has to leave practice after an hour for work.

As far as baseball, he added a slider this season, picked up some velocity and tries to throw three pitches for strikes.

Against Eagle Rock, he struck out 10 and gave up two hits in a 3-1 win. Against Arleta, he struck out 10 in six innings during a 6-1 victory with one walk. Against Westchester, he got two outs — both strikeouts — in a 3-1 win. Against Vaughn, he gave up two hits in six innings of a 2-0 victory..

Monroe, which used to be a City Section powerhouse in the 1970s when Denny Holt was head coach, also has received a strong season from junior Luis Martinez, who has 21 hits and is batting .500.

Pitcher Miguel Gonzalez has helped Monroe to an 13-1 start with a 5-0 record and 0.69 ERA.

(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)

He said his parents have been supportive: “They have told me it’s a really big responsibility.”

After high school, he plans to go to an occupational school to learn more about being a barber. He’d love to continue playing baseball, but that will depend on his development and his priorities. So far, his balancing act is keeping him levelheaded and determined.

He’s been working since he was 5 when he helped his father in landscaping. He switched to cutting hair and loves it. His clients swear by him.

“He’s a good kid,” Alcantar said.

One day at an Idaho hospital, half the newborns Dr. Tom Patterson saw didn’t get the vitamin K shots that have been given to babies for decades to prevent potentially deadly bleeding. On another recent day, more than a quarter didn’t get the shot. Their parents wouldn’t allow it.

“When you look at a child who’s innocent and vulnerable — and a simple intervention that’s been done since 1961 is refused — knowing that baby’s going out into the world is super worrisome to me,” said Patterson, who’s been a pediatrician for nearly three decades.

Doctors across the nation are alarmed that skepticism fueled by rising anti-science sentiment and medical mistrust is increasingly reaching beyond vaccines to other proven, routine preventive care for babies.

A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., which analyzed more than 5 million births nationwide, found that refusals of vitamin K shots nearly doubled between 2017 and 2024, from 2.9% to 5.2%. Other research suggests that parents who decline vitamin K shots are much more likely to refuse getting their newborns the hepatitis B vaccine and an eye ointment to prevent potentially blinding infections. Rates for that vaccination at birth dropped in recent years, and doctors confirm that more parents are refusing the eye medication.

“I do think these families care deeply about their infants,” said Dr. Kelly Wade, a Philadelphia neonatologist. “But I hear from families that it’s hard to make decisions right now because they’re hearing conflicting information.”

Innumerable social media posts question doctors’ advice on safe and effective measures like vitamin K and eye ointment. And the Trump administration has repeatedly undermined established science. A federal advisory committee whose members were appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a leading anti-vaccine activist before joining the administration — voted to end the long-standing recommendation to immunize all babies against hepatitis B right after birth. On Monday a federal judge temporarily blocked all decisions made by the reconfigured committee.

One common thread that ties together anti-vaccine views and growing sentiments against other protective measures for newborns is the fallacy that natural is always better than artificial, said Dr. David Hill, a Seattle pediatrician and researcher.

“Nature will allow 1 in 5 human infants to die in the first year of life,” Hill said, “which is why generations of scientists and doctors have worked to bring that number way, way down.”

Vitamin K’s importance

Babies are born with low levels of vitamin K, leaving them vulnerable because their intestines can’t produce enough until they start eating solid foods at around 6 months old.

“Vitamin K is important for helping the blood clot and preventing dangerous bleeding in babies, like bleeding into the brain,” said Dr. Kristan Scott of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, lead author of the JAMA study.

Before injections became routine, up to about 1 in 60 babies suffered vitamin K deficiency bleeding, which can also affect the gastrointestinal tract. Today the condition is rare, but research shows that newborns who don’t get a vitamin K shot are 81 times more likely to develop severe bleeding than those who do.

Hill has seen what can happen.

“I cared for a toddler whose parents had chosen that risk,” the Seattle doctor said. The child essentially had a stroke as a newborn and wound up with severe developmental delays and ongoing seizures.

At a February meeting of the Idaho chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, doctors said they knew of eight deaths from vitamin K deficiency bleeding in the state over the preceding 13 months, said Patterson, who is president of the chapter.

Infections prevented by other newborn measures can also have grave consequences. Erythromycin eye ointment protects against gonorrhea that can be contracted during birth and potentially cause blindness if untreated. The hepatitis B vaccine prevents a disease that can lead to liver failure, liver cancer or cirrhosis.

Even if a pregnant woman is tested for gonorrhea and hepatitis B, no test is perfect, and she may get infected after testing, said Dr. Susan Sirota, a pediatrician in Highland Park, Ill. Either way, she risks passing the infection to her child.

Why are parents refusing routine care?

Parents give many reasons for turning down preventive measures, including fear that they might cause problems and not wanting newborns to feel pain.

“Some will just say they want more of a natural birth philosophy,” said Dr. Steven Abelowitz, founder of Ocean Pediatrics, which has three clinics in Orange County. “Then there’s a ton of misinformation. … There are outside influences, friends, celebrities, nonprofessionals and political agendas.”

Abelowitz practices in an area of the county with about an equal mix of Republicans and Democrats.

“There’s more mistrust from the conservative side, but there’s plenty on the more liberal side as well,” he said, “It’s across-the-board mistrust.”

Social media provides ample fuel, spreading myths and pushing unregulated vitamin K drops that doctors warn babies can’t absorb well.

Doctors in numerous states say parents refusing vitamin K shots often also decline other measures. Sirota, in Illinois, encountered a family that refused a heel stick to monitor glucose for a baby at high risk for having potentially life-threatening low blood sugar.

Care refusals aren’t a new phenomenon. Wade, in Philadelphia, said she’s seen them for 20 years. But until recently, they were rare.

Twelve years ago, Dana Morrison, now a Minnesota doula, declined the vitamin K shot for her newborn son, giving him oral drops instead.

“It came from a space of really wanting to protect the bonding time with my baby,” she said. “I was trying to eliminate more pokes.”

Her daughter’s birth a couple of years later was less straightforward, leaving the infant with a bruised leg. Morrison got the vitamin K shot for her.

Knowing what she does now, Morrison said, she would have gotten it for her son, too.

Efforts to persuade

Doctors hope to change minds, one parent at a time. And that begins with respect.

“If I walk into the room with judgment, we are going to have a really useless conversation,” Hill said. “Every parent I serve wants the best for their children.”

When parents question the need for the vitamin K shot, Dr. Heather Felton tries to address their specific concerns. She explains why it’s given and the risks of not getting it. Most families decide to get it, said Felton, who has seen no uptick in refusals.

“It really helps that you can take that time and really listen and be able to provide some education,” said Felton, a pediatrician at Norton Children’s in Louisville, Ky.

In Idaho, Patterson sometimes finds himself clearing up misconceptions. Some parents will agree to a vitamin K shot when they find out it’s not a vaccine, for example.

These conversations can take time, especially since the parents doctors see in hospitals usually aren’t people they know through their practices.

But doctors are happy to invest that time if it might save babies.

“I end every discussion with parents with this: ‘Please understand at the end of the day, I’m passionate about this because I have the best interest of children in my mind and heart,’” Patterson said. “I understand this is a hot topic, and I don’t want to disrespect anybody. But at the same time, I’m desperately saddened that we’re losing babies for no reason.”

Ungar writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court broke new ground this month when it ruled the Constitution forbids school policies in California that prevent parents from being told about their child’s gender transition at school.

But the reach of this new parental right remains unclear.

Does it mean all parents have a right to be informed if their child is using a new name and pronouns at school?

Or is the right limited to parents who inquire and object to being “shut out of participation in decisions involving their children’s mental health,” as the high court said in Mirabelli vs. Bonta.

Both sides in this legal battle accuse the other of creating confusion and uncertainty. And that dispute has not subsided.

UC Davis law professor Aaron Tang says understanding the Supreme Court’s order calls for a close reading of the statewide injunction handed down by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego.

That order prohibits school employees from “misleading” or “lying” to parents. It did not say school officials and teachers had a duty to contact parents whenever they saw that a student changed their appearance or used a new name, he said.

By clearing this order to take effect, the Supreme Court’s decision “means that schools must tell parents the truth about their child’s gender presentation at school if the parents request that information,” Tang said.

“But the initial burden is on the parents. This is not a rule that schools have an affirmative obligation to inform any and all parents if their child is presenting as a different gender,” he said.

The high court’s 6-3 order also indicated the reach of the judge’s injunction was limited.

It “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious injunctions.”

Religious conservatives who sued say they seek to end “secret transition” policies that encourage students to adopt a new gender identity without their parents knowing about the change.

The lawsuit challenging California’s “parental exclusion” policies was first filed by two teachers in Escondido.

Peter Breen, an attorney for the Thomas More Society, said many of the parents in Escondido “had no clue” their children were undergoing a gender transition at school.

“We need to activate parents,” he said.

Ruling for them, Benitez said the state’s “parental exclusion policies are designed to create a zone of secrecy around a school student who expresses gender incongruity.”

His injunction also said schools must notify their employees that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school child expresses gender incongruence.”

The Supreme Court’s order cited a dramatic example of nondisclosure.

Two parents who joined the suit had gone to parent-teacher meetings and learned only after their eighth-grade daughter attempted suicide that she had been presenting as a boy at school and suffered from gender dysphoria.

John Bursch, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, argues the Supreme Court’s opinion goes further to empower parents.

“Fairly read, the Mirabelli opinion creates an affirmative obligation on school officials to disclose,” he said. “It’s consistent with the way [the court] describes the parental right: ‘the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.’ School officials’ silence (rather than lying) is not notice to and is shutting out parents.”

“All that said, the California attorney general is obviously not getting that message,” Bursch said.

He said the Supreme Court needs to go beyond an emergency order and fully decide a case that squarely presents the issue of parents rights.

“School officials should not be socially transitioning children without parental notice and consent. Period,” he said.

He filed an appeal petition with the Supreme Court in a case from Massachusetts that dissenting Justice Elena Kagan described as a “carbon copy” of the California dispute.

It takes only four votes to grant review of a case, but since November, the justices have repeatedly considered the case of Foote vs. Ludlow and taken no action.

The case is set to be considered again on Friday in the court’s private conference.

Meanwhile, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta went back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a clarification to limit the potential sweep of Benitez’s order.

He objected to the part of the judge’s order that said schools must post a notice that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

Bonta said that goes beyond what the Supreme Court approved.

This “could be understood to suggest that public school officials have an affirmative constitutional duty to inform parents whenever they observe a student’s expression of ‘gender incongruence,’ effectively imposing a mandatory ‘see something, say something’ obligation in all circumstances,” he said.

But the 9th Circuit said it would not act until he first presented this request to Benitez.

Meanwhile, transgender rights advocates say the voices and the views of students have been ignored.

“This case has been about states’ and parents’ rights but students have been left out of the conversation. Their voices have not been heard at all,” said Andrew Ortiz, an attorney for the Transgender Law Center. “School should be a place where young people can feel safe and confident they can confide in a teacher.”

“We’re hearing about fear and anxiety,” said Jorge Reyes Salinas, communications director for Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization.

“There are students who are unable to speak with their parents. Teachers can encourage them to have a conversation with their parents. But this will weaken the trust they have in their teachers,” he said.

In the past, the court had been wary of reaching into the public schools to decide on education policies and the curriculum, but it took a significant step in that direction last year.

In a Maryland case, the court said religious parents had a right to “opt out” their young children from classes that read “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks.

The 1st Amendment protects the “free exercise of religion” and “government schools … may not place unconstitutional burdens on religious exercise,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito, the lone conservative who attended public schools.

The same 6-3 majority cited that precedent to block California school policies that protect the privacy of students and “conceal” information from inquiring parents if the student does not consent.

But the California case went beyond the religious-rights issue in the Maryland “opt out” case because it included a “subclass of parents” who objected without citing religion as the reason.

The justices ruled for them as a matter of parents’ rights.

“Parents — not the state — have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of children,” the court said.

That simple assertion touches on a sensitive issue for both the conservative and liberal wings of the court. It rests on the 14th Amendment’s clause that says no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

In the past, a liberal majority held that the protection for “liberty” included rights to contraceptives, abortion and same-sex marriages.

Conservatives fiercely objected to what was dubbed “substantive due process.”

In the California case, Kagan, speaking for the liberals in dissent, tweaked the conservatives for recognizing a new constitutional right without saying where it came from.

“Anyone remotely familiar with recent debates in constitutional law will understand why: Substantive due process has not been of late in the good graces of this Court — and especially of the Members of today’s majority,” she wrote.

She noted that when the court struck down the right to abortion in the Dobbs case, Justice Clarence Thomas said he would go further and strike down all the rights that rest on “substantive due process.”

In response to Kagan, Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion that staked out a moderate conservative position.

Since 1997, the court has said it would stand behind rights that were “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition,” she wrote. That includes “a parent’s right to raise her child … and the right to participate in significant decisions about her child’s mental health.”

She said California’s “non-disclosure policy” is unconstitutional and violates the rights of parent because it applies “even if parents expressly ask for information about their child’s gender identification,” she wrote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh signed on to her opinion.

While Kagan dissented on procedural grounds, she did not disagree with bottom-line outcome.

“California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line,” she said. “And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief.”