“When it comes to a student’s change in gender identity, California state policymakers apparently do not trust parents to do the right thing for their child,” said U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez.
A federal judge—Bush-appointed U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez—has dealt a major legal defeat to California state officials by ruling that public schools may not enforce policies that require teachers and staff to keep a student’s gender identity or transition secret from the child’s parents or guardians.
The decision, issued in the case Mirabelli v. Olson, permanently blocks what critics have called parental exclusion policies on the basis that gender‑secrecy rules violate the constitutional rights of parents, students, and teachers. The ruling goes further and mandates that parents have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their child expresses gender incongruence, and that teachers have a constitutional right to tell them.
If school boards and/or administrators are not already complying, they must promptly amend their policies or face legal repercussions.
This marks a decisive victory for parents in what has been a long and hard-fought with state officials over transparency and parental rights.
For years, state officials like then‑Attorney General Rob Bonta—under pressure from the LGBTQ+ lobby—fought for the ability of public schools to refuse to disclose a student’s gender identity to parents without the student’s consent. The California Department of Justice’s own website at times stated that schools lack the right to “out” a student as LGBTQ+ to parents without permission.
Parents across the state responded with apprehension, bringing forth the obvious logical concern that this obfuscation would provide a framework for activist educators to enable students to pursue alternative sexual identities, neo-pronouns, and possibly even seek hormone therapy or puberty blockers with the aim of socially transitioning—all while keeping parents completely in the dark.
The only countermeasure would be some form of parental notification policy. In 2023, then-Assemblyman Bill Essayli introduced AB-1314, which would have required school administrators to inform parents when their child expresses a change in gender identity or sexual orientation. Ironically, its provisions sound remarkably similar to the ruling just issued by Benitez. But, as is the case with many Republican-authored initiatives in California, the bill was killed by the Democrat supermajority and did not pass in the State Legislature.
Local school boards began to understand that relief would not come from Sacramento. Throughout the following year, over one dozen school districts moved to pass their own parental notification policies, including Orange Unified, Placenta-Yorba Linda Unified, Chino Valley Unified, Temecula Valley Unified, Murrieta Valley Unified, Rocklin Unified, Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, and Anderson Union High School District.
Democrats countered with the passage of AB-1955. The new statewide law—signed into effect by Governor Gavin Newsom—was, in effect, a blanket parental exclusion policy that prohibited any public school district from enacting parental notification. It nullified the will of constituents and local school boards across the state.
That was supposed to be the end of the story.
Enter Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West—two public school teachers who said they were compelled to conceal information from parents regarding a student’s change of gender identity. They argued violated their First Amendment rights and professional ethics. Together, they became the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit they hoped would deliver a ruling to protect all parents, guardians, and teachers across the Golden State.
That’s precisely what they got.
“It is unconstitutional to require or induce school personnel to withhold information from, or mislead, parents or guardians of a public school student about issues that materially affect a student’s health, welfare, or physical education,” Benitez wrote in his summary judgment order.
In his decision, Judge Benitez said that California’s secrecy regime also undermines fundamental parental rights under the 14th Amendment, which protects parents’ liberty to guide their children’s upbringing. He likened withholding information on gender identity to keeping parents in the dark about their child’s physical injuries or health conditions.
Supporters of the ruling hailed it as a historic victory for parental rights and educational transparency. Paul Jonna, lead counsel for the plaintiffs and special counsel with the Thomas More Society, called the decision a sweeping termination of what he described as a “dangerous and unconstitutional regime” and “protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense.”
“The ruling effectively places parents back at the center of their children’s lives, affirming that government has no constitutional authority to isolate children from their families over matters as profound as identity, health, and well-being,” reads a statement issued by the California Family Council.
“HUGE win for California parents! Massive L for Democrat groomers,” comments the popular Libs of TikTok account.
Naturally, the California Attorney General’s Office did what they often do when handed a ruling with which they did not agree—they filed an application to stay Benitez’s order. The injunction is currently under review, and the Ninth Circuit will consider the state’s request for a stay during the appeal process.
“We are committed to securing school environments that allow transgender students to safely participate as their authentic selves while recognizing the important role that parents play in students’ lives,” their statement wrote.
“When it comes to a student’s change in gender identity, California state policymakers apparently do not trust parents to do the right thing for their child,” said Benitez.
That perspective Benitez describes has been the prevailing attitude that has dominated public education in California for decades. If rulings like these can stick, that era may very well be coming—at long last—to an end.
Add Comment