A federal judge ruled that California schools can’t conceal students’ opposite-sex gender identities from their families, delivering a smackdown of the hotly contested state policy in a landmark victory for parental-rights advocates.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez permanently blocked policies backed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state officials requiring schools to keep parents out of the loop on their children’s gender transitions.
The judge also ruled that schools don’t need student authorization to disclose opposite-sex names and pronouns.
In his decision, Judge Benitez said California’s interest in protecting the privacy of students and guarding them from potential harassment and bullying was a “laudable goal,” but that it was superseded by the First and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
“The state bases its legal position on a derogation of the parents’ federal constitutional right to care for and raise their children and an unwarranted aggrandizing of a student’s state-created right to privacy,” said Judge Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, in his 52-page opinion released Monday.
“California’s education policymakers may be experts on primary and secondary education but they would not receive top grades as students of Constitutional Law,” he said. “They misapprehend the supremacy of federal constitutional rights.”
Supporters of parental rights hailed the judge’s “historic” decision as a “precedent-setting victory” and “stunning rebuke” to California’s political establishment, which has long fought against right-tilting school districts on transgender-rights issues.
“Today’s incredible victory finally, and permanently, ends California’s dangerous and unconstitutional regime of gender secrecy policies in schools,” said Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society and partner with the law firm LiMandri & Jonna in Rancho Santa Fe, California.
The judge’s order in the class-action lawsuit prevents the “parental exclusion policy” from being enforced at all California public school districts.
“The Court’s comprehensive ruling — granting summary judgment on all claims — protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense,” Mr. Jonna said. “With this decisive ruling from Judge Benitez, all state and local school officials that mandate gender secrecy policies should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences.”
Rather than preventing harm, the judge said that hiding a student’s sex incongruence prevents parents from seeking treatment or counseling for their child.
He also took a jab at the argument that gender identity is inborn.
“The State Defendants’ experts say that a child’s gender identity is innate. There is no evidence presented to back up that assertion,” he said in the decision. “But even if there is a question, it is best answered by parents taking the child to a mental health provider to explore the question, instead of leaving a child to answer the question on his or her own.”
The decision comes after Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West, teachers in the Escondido Union School District, filed a federal lawsuit in April 2023 arguing that they had been “unwillingly drafted into being foot soldiers for gender ideology,” the society said.
The Christian teachers said they were required to use students’ sex-incongruent names and pronouns during school, then revert to their legal names and biological pronouns in discussions with parents, essentially forcing them to lie to families.
They won a preliminary injunction in September 2023 that protected them from the state’s policy. The lawsuit was expanded afterward to include all state parents, teachers and school districts.
In a joint statement, Ms. Mirabelli and Ms. West said they are “profoundly grateful for today’s ruling,” calling it a victory for “honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents.”
“We loved our jobs, our students, and the school communities we served,” they said. “But we were forced into an impossible position when school officials demanded that we lie to parents — violating not only our faith, but also the trust that must exist between teachers and families. No educator should ever be placed in that situation.”
The conservative California Family Council praised the ruling as “justice finally upheld in the face of longstanding statewide resistance.”
“The state told schools they had to keep secrets from moms and dads, and that was never true,” Greg Burt, the council’s vice president, said in a statement. “A federal judge has now made it unmistakably clear: children do not belong to the government, parents have the right to know what’s happening with their own kids, and teachers should never be forced to lie or stay silent to keep their jobs.”
State officials had argued that the lawsuit was moot because the state Department of Education removed its Frequently Asked Questions page on gender policy. The council countered that the state had merely relocated the mandate to its mandatory teacher-training portal called PRISM.
School-choice advocate Corey DeAngelis summed up the ruling on X: “California can’t force teachers to keep secrets from parents.”
Mr. Bonta, the state attorney general, promptly filed an application to stay the court’s injunction pending an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“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,” said the attorney general’s office in a statement.
In his application, Mr. Bonta warned that there will be “severe public harms” from the “nonconsensual disclosure” of students’ transgender status.
“A fear of nonconsensual disclosure can not only harm a student academically, but disincentivizes the type of open communication that allows the student to report instances of harm, bullying, or depression,” he said in the filing.
In addition, he said, the court’s “summary conclusion that it is always in the public’s interest to prevent a violation of constitutional rights again fails to grapple with these serious considerations.”
