*Breaking News* Federal Court Rules California Schools Cannot Withhold Gender Identity Issues With Students From Their Parents

Federal judge says schools may not conceal from parents when children seek to be identified by a gender that does not match their biological sex

When The State Finally Went Too Far

For years, California’s education system has assumed greater authority while giving parents less say. This week, a federal judge said the state had crossed a line.

Late yesterday, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez decided that California public schools cannot stop staff from telling parents when a child wants to be identified by a gender different from their biological sex. The court granted summary judgment to parents and educators who challenged these “parental exclusion” policies, meaning the judge found the facts and law were clear enough to decide the case without a trial.

This is important because the decision was clear, not just a technical detail. The court recognized the real issue: the state was erecting a barrier between parents and teachers regarding something that can change a child’s daily life and even lead to bigger decisions later on.

What The Court Said Schools Cannot Do

These policies worked as intended. If a student wanted to use a different name or pronouns at school, or wanted to be treated as the opposite sex, school staff could be told to keep that from parents unless the student agreed to share it.

This turns the usual relationship upside down. Parents are legally responsible for their children. They sign forms, approve medical care, handle crises, and help when things go wrong. But under these policies, parents were treated as optional, informed only when the system deemed it necessary.

Judge Benitez described the result as a “communication barrier between parents and teachers,” and he put the point plainly: “Parental involvement is essential to the healthy maturation of schoolchildren.”

That statement matters because it gets past much of the official language. The state called these policies “privacy,” but the court saw them for what they really are: enforced secrecy.

Why This Is Bigger Than One Issue

You don’t have to agree with the plaintiffs’ politics to see the real issue. The question isn’t about schools being respectful to students. It’s about whether schools should be allowed to hide critical information from parents about how their child is seen and treated at school.

California has been shifting to a system where administrators decide what parents can know and when. That’s not just about student services. It’s about who holds the power.

There’s also a real-life side that many policymakers ignore: kids go through phases, face peer pressure, and sometimes feel confused. When a school treats biological sex as optional, it’s not just a small change. It’s a big statement about human nature, and it makes sense for parents to want to know if that’s happening with their child at school.

The court’s decision is essential for teachers as well. These policies often required teachers to keep secrets from those responsible for the child’s well-being. Most teachers didn’t expect that. It’s one thing to use professional judgment, but it’s another to be told to hide information as a rule.

---

---

What Happens Next

No doubt this case will be appealed. California’s leaders rarely give up power, especially on issues that are important to the state’s leading political group. The case will likely go to the Ninth Circuit, and the state may try to delay following the ruling while the appeal continues.

This is a significant step, but it’s not the final decision.

Still, this decision has real effects right now. School districts that have used parental exclusion policies now face real legal risks if they continue to use them. Administrators who thought these rules were safe because the state supported them have been warned: the Constitution must be followed.

So, Does It Matter?

This ruling matters because parents have a right to know what’s happening with their children at school, especially if it involves their child being treated as a different gender than their biological sex.

A state that builds secrecy into public education does not build trust. When a state adds secrecy to public education, it doesn’t build trust. It creates resentment, suspicion, and backlash, and undermines the partnerships schools need with families and communities. No doubt the state will appeal this ruling and continue the fight. But for now, a federal court drew a clear line: California cannot cut parents out and call it compassion.

One last note: Judge Benitez has a history of defending the Constitution. To learn more about him, see the California Patriot Profile we wrote up on him here!

---

For the Legal Beagles/Policy Wonks…

You can read Judge Benitez’s ruling in Mirabelli v. Olson right here.

There is a write-up from our friends at the California Policy Center here, with more details than we cover here and valuable links.

---

Typically, for a breaking news post, we would have the “news” above the paywall, and the analysis for our paid subscribers below. But it’s the holidays, so we’re making it all available to all!