In a stunning display of hypocrisy, officials from the Encinitas Union School District (EUSD) in California tried to expose the identity of a fifth-grade student and his religious family in federal court—after previously insisting that they could not notify parents about “gender identity” lessons because doing so might “out” LGBTQ students.
Now, a federal judge has ruled against the district, affirming that the school violated the First Amendment by compelling the child to affirm a gender ideology message that went against his religious beliefs, and ordering that parents must be given notice and the right to opt-out of similar classroom activities in the future.
The Lesson That Sparked a Lawsuit
The case began when the student, referred to as P.D. in court filings reviewed by IW Features, participated in a mandatory “buddy class” at La Costa Heights Elementary School. During the session, P.D. and his classmates were instructed to read “My Shadow Is Pink,” a book about a boy who believes his gender differs from his biological sex. The students were then told to ask their kindergarten buddy what color their shadow is and trace the kindergarten’s shadow in the color that represents their “gender identity.”
P.D.’s family family, devout Catholics who had previously opted out of the school’s “health unit” on religious grounds, were not notified of this lesson in advance.
EUSD officials claimed they did not notify parents that their children would be exposed to LGBT curriculum due to concerns for students’ privacy. However, comments made by school officials about the curriculum suggest an ideological motivation. For example, as revealed in court filings, Assistant Superintendent Amy Illingsworth went so far as to instruct teachers to conceal students’ gender transitions from parents, saying, “I want a parent NOT to know.”
School officials later claimed in court that no opt-out was required because the buddy class was not technically part of the “health” curriculum.
But the court didn’t buy that either.
In a detailed ruling on May 12, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge M. James Lorenz found the district’s actions violated the student’s First Amendment right to free speech. Because P.D. was assigned as a mentor and made to take part in an expressive activity that conveyed support for “gender identity” fluidity—something he deeply disagreed with—the court determined the district compelled the child to express views he does not hold—a clear constitutional violation.
According to court filings, P.D. was uncomfortable, confused, and upset by the classroom activity, but felt he had to go along with it. As the court noted, his teacher was someone he admired, and like many elementary-aged children, he didn’t feel he could speak up.
The court thus rejected the district’s argument that the child wasn’t really compelled to violate his religious beliefs because he didn’t complain about the lesson in the moment. The judge made it clear: just because a student didn’t push back doesn’t mean their rights weren’t violated, especially in a setting where peer pressure and authority figures are powerful influences.
Court Orders Notice and Opt-Out for Gender Topics
In the same ruling, the judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring EUSD to provide parents with advance notice and the right to opt-out of all future buddy program activities that touch on “gender identity,” as defined by the district’s own health curriculum.
The court also rejected the district’s claim that such an opt-out system would be “administratively impossible,” pointing out the school already allows opt-outs for a wide range of activities.
The District’s Shifting Defense: Denial, Deflection, and Contradiction
Throughout the case, EUSD made a series of inconsistent—and at times contradictory—arguments to justify its decision to withhold notice and deny opt-out rights from parents.
First, the district claimed that the buddy class activity involving “My Shadow Is Pink” did not constitute “gender identity education.” Their rationale was that the term “gender identity” never appeared in the book, the lesson didn’t explicitly discuss “gender identity,” and the activity took place within a general mentoring program, not the designated “health unit” where gender topics are typically covered.
However, the court flatly rejected this reasoning. The judge pointed out that the author of “My Shadow Is Pink” has openly described it as a book about “gender identity.” More importantly, the book promotes the idea that gender is fluid and self-defined—an idea also taught in the district’s health unit, where parents are notified and given the option to opt-out. The court recognized that this was a distinction without a difference.
Next, EUSD attempted to reframe the lesson as a general message about kindness and inclusion. Officials claimed the book and accompanying buddy exercise were meant to promote acceptance of people who are “different,” reduce discrimination against gender-diverse individuals, and fulfill California’s legal requirements to include marginalized groups in public education.
But the court again was unpersuaded. Even if the lesson was well-intentioned, the court emphasized that compelling students to participate in expressive activities that affirm a belief they do not hold violates the First Amendment. The district had failed to narrowly tailor the lesson or show that its educational goals couldn’t be met without infringing on students’ constitutional rights.
Finally, the district contradicted itself. EUSD had previously provided parents with a clear and formal definition of “gender identity” in its health education materials:
“Gender Identity: This refers to whether a person sees themselves as a male or female or something in between, i.e., whether they feel like they are a boy or a girl, or neither or both.”
But when challenged in court, the district tried to distance the buddy class from that definition. Officials argued that because the lesson did not use the exact term “gender identity,” it did not qualify as such instruction, and therefore, no opt-out was necessary. The court saw through this tactic, ruling that the content’s effect—not the terminology used—is what determines whether notice and parental rights apply.
“Protecting Privacy”—or Silencing Parents?
As the lawsuit progressed, EUSD took an even more troubling turn—they tried to strip the family of their court anonymity, a move that would have revealed P.D.’s identity and made him vulnerable to bullying, retaliation, and public backlash. The family had already experienced harassment from teachers, students, and community members after expressing religious objections to the gender-themed lesson.
The judge shut that effort down, ruling in January that the parents could proceed under pseudonyms. Revealing their names, he noted, would “effectively unmask” the child and open him to real harm. Protecting his privacy, the court held, was not only reasonable—it was necessary.
This is where the hypocrisy becomes undeniable.
The same school district that claimed parents couldn’t be told about gender-themed lessons to protect students’ privacy tried to publicly expose a religious student for daring to object to those very lessons.
Let that sink in.
They refused to inform parents because it might “out” a student—but then tried to “out” a student in federal court whose parents simply wanted the right to raise their child in line with their faith.
This case lays bare the real gender ideology agenda: it’s not about protecting kids—it’s about controlling the narrative and punishing dissent.
But thanks to a courageous Encinitas family, the truth—and the law—have won an important battle. Parents and students have rights, and those rights do not end at the classroom door.
