Win for California Parents, Teachers: Court Blocks School Secret Gender Transitioning Policy

Win for California Parents, Teachers: Court Blocks School Secret Gender Transitioning Policy

In a landmark class-action decision, a federal district court has ruled that parents in California have a right to be told when their child “socially transitions” to the opposite sex in school—and teachers have a right to tell them. The decision and order issued a class-wide permanent injunction blocking the policies.

California’s “parental exclusion” policy purposely keeps parents in the dark when their child decides to “become” the opposite sex in school.

Until now, as in school districts throughout the country, teachers in California were not allowed to tell parents when their child “identified” as a new gender unless they had the student’s consent. That required school staff to keep “a sort of double set of books” for transgender students—one to be used when speaking to parents and the other to be used in school. These parental exclusion policies applied to children as young as two and as old as seventeen, the court noted yesterday.

The parents and teachers asked the court for an injunction which would permit teachers to disclose (of their own volition) gender identity information to parents.

We covered the case, Mirabelli v. Olson, back in September 2023. Then, in a preliminary ruling, Judge Roger Benitez blocked the school from enforcing the policy against two teachers who refused to hide information from parents about their children’s newly expressed gender identity.

The teachers are now joined with a group of parents of public school children contesting the policies as part of a class action lawsuit against school officials and the state.

Together, the group claimed that prohibiting accurate answers to a parent’s question is a violation of several federal constitutional rights.

“The problem is that when a parent asks directly, the teachers are compelled to avoid answering. Purposeful avoidance, or worse, purposeful deception by a teacher or staff member, directly undermines a parent’s Fourteenth Amendment right to care for their child in every case and may undermine a religious parent’s First Amendment right to direct their child’s religious upbringing,” Judge Benitez wrote.

“[T]he secrecy aspect of the policy not only does not assist parents, it deprives parents of the opportunity to evaluate a significant medical sign and decide whether to pursue psychological counseling, psychiatric care, gender-affirming care, family acceptance, or something else. When these signs of a potentially serious conditions appear, it is the parents’ right and duty to investigate, evaluate, and decide on whether to pursue help from medical or mental health professionals.”

The parental exclusion policy creates an impenetrable “barrier of silence” that impermissibly interferes with the parents’ rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children, the court continued.

It also infringes the teachers’ religious rights, the court held. Unless a child consents, teachers who tell parents about their child’s decision to join the opposite sex face an unconstitutional choice: keep their faith and lose their job, or lose their faith and keep their job.

Demanding that teachers lie or deceptively avoid parents’ questions is “a type of government speech that may not be forced upon teachers who conscientiously disagree,” Judge Benitez continued, in violation of their free speech rights.

The State argued, as usual, that it had a legitimate and even compelling interest in protecting trans students from bullying and harassment and in fostering a “safe and supportive” school environment. They failed to make their case, and even if they had, the court held, its non-disclosure policy could not come at the expense of the parents’ constitutional rights.

“Preventing student bullying and harassment in school is a laudable goal,” the court stated. “The problem is that the parent exclusion policies seem to presume that it is the parents who will be the harassers from whom students need to be protected.”

With yesterday’s decision, the court has come full circle. As in his earlier ruling, Judge Benitez condemns the California gender policy in no uncertain terms.

They’re a “trifecta of harm”:

[T]hey harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the resultof 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.

As parents’ rights to be informed about their children’s gender hang in the balance at the Supreme Court, yesterday’s decision is a reassuring win for California’s parents—and their children’s teachers. Leaving no room for doubt, the court ordered a permanent injunction against announcing, repeating, or enforcing the parental exclusion policies.

Update: The State has moved for a stay of Judge Benitez’s ruling.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.