Image 01 Image 03

Moms for Liberty Asks Court to Block New Jersey School District’s Gender Secrecy Policy

Moms for Liberty Asks Court to Block New Jersey School District’s Gender Secrecy Policy

New lawsuit says Chathams school district is doubling down on its gender secrecy policy “in open defiance of the law of the land.”

Moms for Liberty is suing a New Jersey school district over its gender secrecy policy allowing school staff to “socially transition” students—referring to them with a new name and pronouns—without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

In New Jersey’s Chathams school district, when a student asks to “become” a different gender, Policy 5145.7 gives the school counselor sole discretion to decide whether to tell the parents.

The parents’ advocacy group claims the school’s policy defies the Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta, where the Court restored the rights of a group of California parents to be told if their child expresses a new “gender identity” in school.

According to the complaint, the school district’s policy also requires trans students to be allowed in team sports, locker rooms, and changing facilities of their newly expressed genders—forcing their classmates of the opposite biological sex to bathe and undress with them.

All this could happen without the parents ever finding out that their daughter might encounter a boy in the girls’ room, because he decided he’s a girl, too.

To keep up the charade—or, as the school puts it, “ensure consistency”—the school policy directs staff to keep two sets of books:

If the student has previously been known at school or in school records by a birth name, the principal should direct school personnel to use the student’s chosen name and not the student’s birth name. To ensure consistency among teachers, school administrators, substitute teachers and other staff, every effort should be made to immediately update student education records (i.e. attendance records, transcripts, individuals education programs, etc.) with the student’s chosen name and gender pronouns, consistent with the student’s gender identity and expression, and not circulate records with the student’s birth name, unless directed by the student.

…

If the District changes a student’s name or gender identity, it must also maintain locally a separate record reflecting the student’s legal name and sex assigned at birth until receipt of documentation of a legal change of name or gender.

[emphasis added]

And what if other students are unwilling to make believe their classmate is the opposite sex? According to the complaint, they could be punished for “misgendering” under the school district’s “harassment, intimidation and bullying policy”—even when speaking off campus.

The real “bullying,” reads the complaint, is forcing schoolchildren to parrot wrong-sex pronouns, itself a form of unconstitutional compelled speech.

The policy also allows students to be referred to outside “pro-trans” organizations without parental notice or consent.

While the district maintains its gender policy is mandated by the state, the lawsuit states that claim is false and misleading, because there is no such directive—only an optional policy that local districts are not required to adopt.

After the school district refused its request to rescind or amend the policy, Moms for Liberty sued in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. They claim the gender policy infringes their parental, free speech, and religious rights, in violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

MFL is represented by the Thomas More Society, the same group that fought and won for parents at the Supreme Court in Mirabelli v. Bonta, as we covered here.

The Supreme Court’s preliminary ruling in Mirabelli blocked California’s similar gender policies because the parents were likely to succeed on their free exercise and due process claims. Those policies “substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,’” and were not likely to survive strict scrutiny.

Notwithstanding this clear Supreme Court guidance, Chathams school board president and defendant Ann Ciccarelli has doubled down on the district’s gender secrecy policy. At a public school board meeting this past June, the lawsuit states, she declared that “The United States Supreme Court decision Mirabelli is not [spoken with emphasis] binding on public school districts in New Jersey.”

The complaint calls the school’s stance “open defiance of the law of the land.” Although Mirabelli was an interim decision—and in that regard, non-binding—its scope is not, as Ciccarelli represented at the meeting, limited to California.

In fact, courts in two different circuits have already revived parental rights claims in light of Mirabelli—here and here.

Before the Court’s ruling in Mirabelli, the blue state of New Jersey, like California, sued three of its own school districts for requiring parents to be notified when their child requests to change genders, in the name of protecting trans kids’ “safety.”

But that argument—that secret social transitioning policies keep trans kids “safe”—was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Mirabelli: “The State’s interest in safety,” the Court concluded, “could be served by a policy that allows religious exemptions while precluding gender-identity disclosure to parents who would engage in abuse.”

Instead, California’s gender policies “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

Moms for Liberty is asking the court to declare the school’s policies unconstitutional and block their enforcement, in line with Mirabelli and Supreme Court precedent.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

In civil rights litigation, if a company has a race neutral policy but the result still shows a racial imbalance it is called disparate impact and the employer can be sued by the government.

So, who cares what the school policy is. If the parents are being shut out then that alone is proof the law is being violated. Arguing it’s not policy doesn’t cut it. Put yourself in the shoes of a counselor: your employer tells you this not (air quotes) policy and then stares at you in silence. What do you think the message is?

    Milhouse in reply to George S. | September 3, 2026 at 3:42 pm

    In civil rights litigation, if a company has a race neutral policy but the result still shows a racial imbalance it is called disparate impact and the employer can be sued by the government.

    Only if the company can’t show a valid reason for the policy.

The modern administrators of our local schools have authority, but they lack the wisdom to wield it. In their haste to appear benevolent, they have established a system of clandestine guidance, permitting children to assume new names and genders in total secrecy from their own parents. Such a policy is a grave error in judgment.It is a basic truth of American life that the family is the proper foundation of a child’s character. For a public institution to actively deceive a father and mother regarding the identity of their own offspring is a violation of natural duty. It breeds suspicion where there should be trust. Furthermore, this policy shows a reckless disregard for the law, standing in open defiance of supreme court guidance.True authority requires humility and respect for established jurisprudence. When school superintendents set themselves above both the law of the land and the rights of parents, they do not protect the young; they merely indulge their own vanity.

This school district has been polluted by woke long before that term became popular. Thirty-five years ago our sons attended an elementary school headed by an Ed.D. Principal who told us his highest priority was promoting the students’ self-esteem and who ended the gifted and talented program and shifted the funds to purchase hockey equipment in part because he couldn’t abide the lobbying of parents to include their children. The teachers had a union- influenced work ethic of minimum availability to parents. Our sons then thrived in private schools. From retirement a couple thousand miles away, I see that once-conservative Chatham is becoming a leftist enclave after being gerrymandered legislatively and Congressionally.

I joined them few years back

The problem with the “Moms for Liberty” lawsuit is that even if they win, the wickedness will continue. There is no “liberty” when parents (and taxpayers) are forced to pay through their taxes for a system of government-run schools which teach their (and other parent’s) children in ways which are morally repugnant. This lawsuit covers only one issue of MANY. And rogue administrators and teachers will still act to circumvent any court decision.

Why doesn’t Moms for Liberty sue to allow taxpayers to direct their school taxes to go to schools of their choice? That would be closer to true liberty.

Why do people have to sue about such stuff? If it’s a law.go enforce it. Or it’s a criminal complaint.

What’s the deal here?