(WND)—It’s going to cost California some $4.5 million to lose a legal fight over its agenda to “transition” children in the state’s schools secretly.
It was none other than the U.S. Supreme Court that closed down that plan.
And now a court order from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, of the Southern District in California, has granted a request from the Thomas More Society for $4.52 million in legal fees.
That law firm represented the two public school teachers in the Mirabelli v. Bonta case.
According to a report at the Center Square, the judge actually warned that “California has continued to challenge aspects of the ruling, including a recent motion seeking to modify the injunction.”
The report said, “The court detailed a pattern of what it called ‘litigation intransigence’ by state defendants, including repeated motions to dismiss after prior ones were denied and filing an appeal without waiting for a ruling. Benitez described the ongoing litigation as based on ‘the thinnest of arguments.’”
The case follows litigation that began in 2023 over California’s agenda to have public school staff members transition children in schools into the transgender lifestyle choice, and then conceal those actions from parents.
The lawsuit challenged guidance critics describe as “gender secrecy” policies, which allow school officials to withhold information from parents about a student’s request to change names, pronouns or other gender-related identifiers at school, the report said.
The ruling from the Supreme Court was 6-3 against a school policy because the justices found parents likely will succeed in their constitutional claim.
“Thomas More Society will continue to enforce the Mirabelli ruling nationwide, and any school district or state that tries to cut parents out of their children’s lives should expect the same result,” said Peter Breen, executive vice president at Thomas More Society.
WorldNetDaily previously reported the ruling was called a “watershed moment for parental rights.”
“The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back,” explained Paul Jonna, a lawyer at the Thomas More Society.
“The court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country,” Jonna said.
The Supreme Court’s action was to affirm an injunction against the state’s gender secrecy agenda, which was intended by officials in the leftist state to require school staff hide any student’s “transgender identity” from parents.
The court decision was based on a precedent from a case filed on behalf of Catholic parents, and the result is that a state law barring parental notification cannot be applied.
Left standing was the ruling from Benitez, who said, “The attorney general on behalf of the state of California says plaintiffs’ lawsuit is ‘properly understood as seeking a federal constitutional exemption from the California constitutional right to privacy, as applied to gender identity in the school context.’ … But the attorney general gets it upside down. Plaintiffs do not ask the state to magnanimously permit a sort of federal constitutional exemption. What plaintiffs seek is to force the state to respect their enduring federal constitutional rights as citizens of the United States.”
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley explained, of the ruling, “While it only restores the injunction during the pendency of the litigation below, it reflects a clear notion of the likelihood to prevail on the merits.”
The lawsuit at hand involved teachers who sued because they expected to be punished if they refused to lie about a student’s gender identity. Parents joined the action involving the Escondido Union School District’s agenda.
* * *
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
