In a first-of-its-kind statewide class action, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction last month blocking California from enforcing state policies that required public schools to conceal a child’s gender transition from parents. The sweeping ruling binds the California Attorney General, the state’s Department of Education, and every public school district in the state.
On Dec. 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez granted summary judgment in favor of parents and teachers challenging what the court repeatedly referred to as “Parental Exclusion Policies.” Benitez’s judgment was followed by an order issuing a class-wide permanent injunction.
The case, Mirabelli v. Olson, was brought by two veteran teachers and multiple families who argued that California’s policies violated parents’ and teachers’ constitutional rights by compelling secrecy between schools and parents. Benitez agreed: “These rights are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution,” the court wrote.
The injunction bars California officials from implementing or enforcing laws, regulations, guidance, or state-created training in a manner that permits or requires school employees to mislead or lie to parents about a child’s gender presentation at school, including whether the child uses a different name or pronouns at school. It also bars the state from interfering with teachers or staff who communicate to parents that their child has manifested gender incongruity.
Judge Benitez ordered the California Attorney General, the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Board of Education to immediately notify all responsible personnel of the ruling and to amend state training materials accordingly. The court specifically directed that PRISM and other state-created or approved trainings must now include a clear statement that parents and teachers possess federal constitutional rights that supersede conflicting state or local policies.
“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence,” the court-ordered statement reads. “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.”
The ruling applies statewide because the court certified the case as a class action, extending relief to all California parents and teachers affected by the policies.
In a joint statement following the ruling, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West said they were grateful for the outcome after what they described as a long and difficult legal fight.
“We loved our jobs, our students, and the school communities we served,” the teachers told IW Features. “But we were forced into an impossible position when school officials demanded that we lie to parents, violating not only our faith, but also the trust that must exist between teachers and families. No educator should ever be placed in that situation. This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents. We are so thankful that this chapter is finally closed and that justice has prevailed.”
As Mirabelli and West pointed out in the lawsuit, California’s policies required school employees to affirm a student’s asserted “gender identity” at school while withholding that information from parents unless the student consented—regardless of their conscientious objections.Teachers who disclosed the information risked discipline and termination.
In its summary judgment order, the court described the system as one designed to “create a zone of secrecy” around students who express gender incongruity. The court noted the policies restrain public school teachers and staff from informing parents unless the child consents, and stated that the policies apply to children as young as 2 years old and as old as 17.
The court rejected the state’s argument that excluding parents was justified by safety concerns.
“Disagreement is not abuse,” Judge Benitez wrote, emphasizing that mandatory reporting laws and law enforcement mechanisms already exist to address actual abuse or imminent danger.
The court stated that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting children from their parents absent definite and articulable evidence of harm.
Judge Benitez also addressed the medical and psychological implications of the policies.
“Under the Fourteenth Amendment, parents have a substantive due process right to know of and explore whether their own child’s gender incongruence is a medical or psychological condition and whether and what kind of treatment or approach is in their child’s best interest,” the court wrote. The court noted that while state experts asserted a child’s gender identity is innate, “there is no evidence presented to back up that assertion.”
The court further rejected California’s reliance on Assembly Bill 1955, which the state argued resolved the dispute. Judge Benitez concluded the statute did not sufficiently protect teachers who voluntarily inform parents, and left intact other legal mechanisms that could still be used to punish teachers for disclosure. “Nowhere in the body of AB 1955 can be found a positive statement that teachers may voluntarily inform a student’s parents,” the court stated.
Paul Jonna, special counsel for the Thomas More Society and lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said the ruling marks a legal first.
“This victory is significant, first of its kind statewide class action blocking these dangerous and unconstitutional policies,” Jonna told IW Features. “The court granted summary judgment on all claims and made clear that parents and teachers do not lose their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”
Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council, said the decision restores a fundamental balance between schools and families.
“A federal judge has now made it unmistakably clear that children do not belong to the government,” Burt said. “Parents have the right to know what is happening with their own kids, and teachers should never be forced to lie or stay silent to keep their jobs.”
In weighing the harm, Judge Benitez concluded the policies created what he described as a “trifecta of harm,” injuring children who need parental guidance, parents deprived of long-recognized constitutional rights, and teachers compelled to violate their conscience. The court framed the conflict as a coercive choice for families, writing that parents were forced to choose: “Lose your faith and keep your child in public school, or keep your faith but lose public schooling,” Benitez wrote.
The injunction takes effect immediately and applies to all state actors and anyone acting in concert with them. The court ordered California to file proof within 20 days that all relevant personnel have been notified of the ruling.
The decision represents one of the most expansive federal court interventions into California education policy in recent years, with implications for every public school district in the state.
However, the ruling is now temporarily on hold after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay while it reviews the case. The pause does not overturn Judge Benitez’s decision but prevents it from being enforced while the state pursues its appeal and argues that the injunction could conflict with existing privacy protections such as AB 1955. The appeals court is expected to decide soon whether to extend the stay for the duration of the appeal, leaving the ultimate impact of the decision unresolved for now.
