The Ninth Circuit has put a temporary stop to California’s AB 1955, blocking parts of the law that would have prevented schools from telling parents about their children’s gender identity, finding that parents have strong constitutional protections and are entitled to emergency relief while the case proceeds.
The Appeals Court issued a preliminary injunction against parts of AB 1955 after Huntington Beach sued the state and Gov. Gavin Newsom, arguing the law shut parents out of key information about their children. The decision prevents enforcement of the provisions at issue while the legal fight continues, and it immediately affects how schools can handle communications with parents. This is a major courtroom rebuke to a state policy that aimed to keep certain student information from families.
AB 1955 had prohibited schools from disclosing information to parents about a child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression unless the child consented. The injunction specifically blocks enforcement of Sections 5 and 6 of AB 1955 as to the Plaintiff-Parents, halting mandatory silence policies that would have cut parents out of conversations about their kids. City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom, No. 25-3826, now sits at the center of a constitutional fight over who gets to decide what parents learn about their children.
America First Legal Foundation represented the city and pressed the case through the courts. “As the Court explained, the substantive due process right of parents ‘to direct the upbringing and education of their children’ ‘includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health,’ which includes the right to information known to the school about whether “a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school.” That language is a straightforward defense of parental access to information schools might otherwise withhold.
The Ninth Circuit revisited prior denials for emergency relief after the Supreme Court’s decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta, 607 U.S. 492 (2026), and concluded the parents met the standards for a preliminary injunction. The court wrote that the parents “very likely have standing because they are objects of the challenged exclusion policies,” and it rejected the idea that officials could dodge basic constitutional concerns with generalized policies. The opinion is emphatic that “parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of children” and “have the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”
In its analysis the Ninth Circuit found AB 1955 “forbids the mandatory policies that the Constitution requires” and that the statute’s enforced secrecy would amount to irreparable constitutional harm. The court emphasized that removing parents from crucial conversations is not a harmless administrative choice but a deprivation of rights. It also said the injunction “promotes child safety by guaranteeing fit parents a role in some of the most consequential decisions in their children’s lives,” tying procedural access to real-world child welfare concerns.
The three-judge panel’s order enjoined enforcement of the challenged sections against the Plaintiff-Parents, giving families immediate protection while the appeal proceeds. That relief is limited to the parties before the court but sets a strong precedent for similar challenges elsewhere. The case record includes the decision caption and number for reference and will be watched closely by school administrators and state officials alike.
CA9 Decision Granting PI Pending Appeal by scott.mcclallen appears in the court filings and public postings related to the matter, documenting the panel’s reasoning and the scope of the injunction. Legal observers will parse the opinion for how the Ninth Circuit applied recent Supreme Court guidance and what that means for parental rights litigation moving forward.
https://x.com/America1stLegal/status/2067984270212083888
Nick Barry, Senior Counsel at AFL, captured the argument for parents in blunt terms: “The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a powerful vindication of parental rights. California cannot use state law to force schoolteachers and administrators into a conspiracy of silence against parents. California’s law, and similar school policies, use state coercion to intentionally interfere with the parent-child relationship and separate a child from their parent. That is wrong and unlawful. The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection.”
