Jan 4
Federal Judge Rules California Schools Cannot Conceal Transgender Students' Identities from Parents
READ TIME: 3 MIN.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, appointed by former President George W. Bush, issued a 52-page decision on December 22, 2025, granting summary judgment to plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against California public schools. The injunction prohibits school employees from misleading parents about a student's gender presentation, such as using different names or pronouns with parents than those used at school, if parents object. It also bars schools from preventing teachers from notifying parents if a student identifies as transgender or requests to use a different name or pronouns.
The case, "Mirabelli v. State of California", was filed in April 2023 by Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, former teachers in the Escondido Union School District. The teachers, citing their Christian faith, challenged district policies—based on state guidance—that required staff to keep a student's transgender status confidential unless the student consented to disclosure. The Escondido district has since revised its policy amid the litigation. Judge Benitez ruled that these "gender secrecy policies" violate parents' substantive due process rights under the 14th Amendment and their free exercise rights under the First Amendment, as well as teachers' First Amendment rights to free speech and religious exercise.
Benitez emphasized parents' fundamental right to direct their child's upbringing, citing Supreme Court precedents like "Troxel v. Granville" , which holds that "the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents." He argued that schools cannot withhold significant information about a child's gender nonconformity, which he described as potentially involving long-term mental health issues that parents are best positioned to address. The judge rejected assumptions that parental notification equates to abuse, stating, "Disagreement is not abuse." He also invoked the Supreme Court's 2025 "Mahmoud v. Taylor" decision, which supported religious parents opting children out of LGBTQ+ content in schools.
The ruling addresses four key questions: parents' due process right to gender information, parents' free exercise right, teachers' free exercise right to share such information, and teachers' free speech right to communicate accurately. Benitez noted that teachers routinely inform parents about students' health or well-being issues, and gender identity changes warrant the same transparency. Testimony from psychologist Erica Anderson, who advocates for parental involvement in gender-related decisions for youth, supported the plaintiffs.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office, defending the state, immediately appealed and requested a stay, arguing the injunction inflicts "severe and indisputable irreparable harm" by overriding state protections for transgender students. State lawyers contended that nonconsensual disclosure could erode trust between students and teachers, hinder reporting of bullying or mental health issues, and expose transgender youth to abuse risks at home. A spokesperson for Bonta stated, “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.”
Plaintiffs' attorney Paul Jonna of the Thomas More Society hailed the decision as an "incredible victory" that "ends California’s dangerous and unconstitutional regime of gender secrecy policies" and protects parents, students, and teachers statewide. The teachers expressed gratitude, calling it a win for "honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents."
LGBTQ+ advocates expressed alarm. Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang described the ruling as "dangerous," arguing it targets protections ensuring schools are safe spaces where transgender and gender-nonconforming students can thrive without fear. The group emphasized that such policies protect students from potential harm.
This decision applies statewide as school districts are deemed state agents, potentially affecting thousands of transgender students in California public schools. It highlights ongoing tensions between parental rights, religious freedoms, and efforts to support transgender youth in educational settings. The appeal process will determine if the injunction holds.
