Federal court stops California policy that barred teachers from telling parents about a student’s gender transition, calling the rule unconstitutional and affirming parental and teacher speech rights.
A federal judge in San Diego has permanently enjoined a California policy that required public schools to conceal a student’s gender transition from parents, ruling it unconstitutional. The case centered on two teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West, who said the policy forced them to choose between honesty and their Christian faith. This ruling restores a basic expectation: parents should be told about major developments affecting their children. It also relieves teachers from being compelled to hide information that conflicts with their conscience and the law.
Judge Roger T. Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, sided with the plaintiffs and framed the issue as one of federal constitutional rights for parents and educators. He wrote, “Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.” He followed that with, “Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence.” He also ordered that this statement be published “in a prominent place” regarding the “gender-related rights of student and faculty.”
Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers andschool staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent orguardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence.These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state orlocal regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.
In his written opinion, Judge Benitez relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which confirmed parental authority to withdraw children from school material and discussions that conflict with sincerely held beliefs. That precedent helped frame the California policy as an overreach that cut parents out of important conversations about their child. The judge’s finding makes clear that federal constitutional protections for families and educators trump state-level attempts to impose secrecy in the classroom.
Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society, called the decision decisive. He said, “Today’s incredible victory finally, and permanently, ends California’s dangerous and unconstitutional regime of gender secrecy policies in schools.” That statement captures how conservative legal advocates view the ruling: a clear win for religious freedom and parental rights.
State officials and backers of the policy argued it was meant to shield so-called transgender children from bullying and harassment by their families, a justification California Attorney General Rob Bonta invoked repeatedly. In 2023 Bonta even sued a school district over its policy that required notifying parents when students adopted new names or pronouns or sought access to facilities not aligned with their biological sex. Those moves showed the state’s willingness to litigate to keep parents in the dark about significant decisions involving minors.
After the permanent injunction, Bonta’s office moved quickly to try to pause the ruling. “We believe that the district court misapplied the law and that the decision will ultimately be reversed on appeal,” Bonta’s office said in a statement. “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.” That response signals an inevitable appellate battle over where the balance between student privacy and parental notice will land.
The American Civil Liberties Union pushed back hard against the judge’s order, warning of harm from forced disclosure. Christine Parker, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said, “A culture of outing harms everyone — students, families, and school staff alike — by removing opportunities to build trust. LGBTQ+ students deserve to decide on their own terms if, when, and how to come out, and to be able to be themselves at school.” That perspective frames the issue around student autonomy and privacy rather than parental authority.
The law at the center of the dispute was authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom last year, directing the California Department of Education to issue guidance and resources for families of LGBTQ+ students. Supporters said the guidance was intended to protect vulnerable pupils, while opponents said it disrespected parental roles and compelled school employees to conceal information. The clash made this case a flashpoint in the broader culture wars over education and family control.
Jeffrey M. Trissell, counsel at Thomas More Society, praised the court’s comprehensive ruling and framed it as restoring common sense. He said, “The State knew this was a losing legal battle and tried to pull out every lawyer’s trick in the book to avoid responsibility.” The Thomas More team said the judgment restored protections for parents, students, and teachers and left the door open for further appeals.
The clash over secrecy policies and parental notice is likely to continue up the court ladder, and the case could reach the Supreme Court. Whatever happens on appeal, the San Diego decision marks a significant moment in the fight over whether state policy can override parents’ legal rights and teachers’ free speech and conscience protections in public schools.
