Federal Judge Issues Permanent Injunction Against Parental Exclusion Policies in California Schools
Dear John,
In a landmark victory for parental rights, a federal judge in Southern California ruled Monday that parents have a constitutional right to be informed if their minor child socially transitions their gender at school and that teachers have a constitutional right to inform parents of the transition.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California issued the summary judgment ruling in Mirabelli v. Olson, and issued a permanent injunction against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and members of the California State Board of Education.
The ruling halts California’s state-sanctioned “Parental Exclusion Policies” that order teachers to hide a child’s gender transition at school from their own parents.
“This is a historic win for parental rights and a devastating loss for Gov. Newsom, Rob Bonta and Tony Thurmond,” said Lance Christensen, Vice President of Government Affairs and Education Policy at California Policy Center (CPC). “Parents’ constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children cannot be overridden by state bureaucrats.”
“Californians are celebrating the return of common sense and this victory for parental rights today with the monumental win in Mirabelli v Olson,” said Emily Rae, president of CPC’s California Justice Center. “We applaud the Thomas More Society for their landmark victory, and the brave teachers and parents who weathered this fight.”
The Mirabelli lawsuit was filed by the Thomas More Society on behalf of two San Diego-area teachers who sued the Escondido Union School District (EUSD) over its secrecy policy. The policy required teachers to be complicit in the school’s scheme to hide a student’s gender transition at school. Teachers were instructed to use a student’s new name and pronouns at school, but revert to the student’s legal name and biological pronouns when speaking with parents — forcing teachers to conceal a child’s new “gender identity” from parents.
Teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West argued that the policy violates their free speech and religious freedom rights under the First Amendment and infringes on parents’ Fourteenth Amendment right to direct their children’s upbringing. In October, Judge Benitez certified the case as a class action lawsuit covering all California parents and teachers who object to school district policies that hide children’s gender transitions from parents.
The federal district court’s ruling strikes down gender secrecy policies in schools statewide, but will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by state government officials.
“Judge Benitez issued a well-reasoned opinion that protects California parents, teachers and students,” Rae continued. “The ruling affirms that teachers cannot lie to parents about the gender identity of their own children.”
Rae has served as the lead attorney on several lawsuits promoting parents’ right to know about changes to their child’s gender in public school — cases originally brought by the Liberty Justice Center and now joined by the California Justice Center. These include a lawsuit challenging AB 1955 — a California law signed by Gov. Newsom in July 2024 that banned school districts from enacting parental notification policies requiring schools to inform parents if their child socially transitions at school. That case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
* * *
What the Mirabelli Ruling Says
In his Order Granting Plaintiffs' Class-wide Permanent Injunction, Judge Benitez instructed state officials as follows:
“Defendants shall include in a prominent place in PRISM training materials, and in any other state-created or approved instruction on the gender-related rights of student and faculty, the following statement:
‘Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. 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. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.’”
In addition, the judge enjoined California officials from implementing or enforcing any regulation, law or guidance that would:
“(a): permit or require any employee in the California state-wide education
system from misleading the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school, whether by: (i) directly lying to the parent; (ii) preventing the parent from accessing educational records of the child; or (iii) using a different set of preferred pronouns/names when speaking with the parents than is being used at school;
(b): permit or require any employee in the California state-wide education system to use a name or pronoun to refer to that child that do not match the child’s legal name and natal pronouns, where a child’s parent or legal guardian has communicated their objection to such use;
(c): require any employee in the California state-wide education system to use a name or pronoun to refer to a child that do not match the child’s legal name and natal pronouns while concealing that social gender transition from the child’s parents, over the employee’s conscientious or religious objection;
(d): or in any way interfere with a teacher or other school administrator, counselor or staff from communicating to parents that his, her, or their child has manifested a form of gender incongruity such as changing preferred names or Pronouns.”
Significantly, Judge Benitez ordered state officials to notify “all personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined provisions” within 20 days and to provide proof of such notice. That means state officials must communicate Benitez’s order to every state-paid school or district employee in the state who may be involved with socially transitioning a child’s gender at school.
In his Order Granting Summary Judgement in Favor of the Plaintiffs, Judge Benitez writes:
“[T]his case presents the following four questions about a parent’s rights to information as against a public school’s policy of secrecy when it comes to a student’s gender identification. First, do parents have a right to gender information based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause? Second, do parents have a right to gender information protected by the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause? Third, do religious public school teachers have a right to provide gender information to parents based on the First Amendment’s free exercise clause? Fourth, do public school teachers have a right to communicate accurate gender information to parents based on the First Amendment free speech clause? In each case, this Court concludes that, as a matter of law, the answer is ‘yes.’ Parents have a right to receive gender information and teachers have a right to provide to parents accurate information about a child’s gender identity.”
Benitez also reiterated his 2023 statement from the preliminary injunction ruling that parental exclusion policies create a “trifecta of harm: they harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. They harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs. And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.” (emphasis added)
* * *
“Schools should never lie to parents. It hurts kids, it devastates families, and it violates the constitutional rights of parents to raise their own children,” said CPC’s Christensen. “It’s been a long time coming, but the court’s ruling is a huge victory for the hundreds of parents, teachers, students, and school board members who have fought tirelessly to stop California’s disastrous parent exclusionary policies.”
Read the Thomas More Society Press Release Here
Read the Court’s Order Granting a Permanent Injunction Here
Read the Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment Here
|
