In a landmark class-action ruling, San Diego-based U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez on Dec. 22 placed a permanent ban on California’s gender secrecy policies pushed by the state’s Department of Education.
The decision delivers a strong rebuke to state policies that have prohibited public school employees from sharing information with parents about their child’s “sexual orientation” and “gender identity/expression” without express consent from the child.
In his ruling, Benitez made clear that the state had overstepped its constitutional authority by sidelining parents, compelling educators to violate their consciences, and harming vulnerable children by depriving them of parental guidance. At the heart of the case was the question of who holds primary authority over a child’s welfare. The court answered decisively: parents do.
The plaintiffs in the case, both parents and teachers, objected to the state’s secrecy policy on the basis of their Christian faith. One teacher, called Jane Roe in court documents, stated: “As a Christian, I believe that God made man and woman in His image, specifically male and female. I believe that it is impossible to change our sex and that our sex was given to us by God for a reason. I also believe that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, and God doesn’t make mistakes.”
Judge Benitez stated, “California’s education policymakers may be experts on primary and secondary education but they would not receive top grades as students of Constitutional Law.” He rejected the state’s attempt to elevate student privacy above long-recognized constitutional protections afforded to families, writing that California officials had “misapprehend[ed] the supremacy of federal constitutional rights” and wrongly treated federal constitutional rights belonging parents as “weak-kneed and frail and subservient to the student’s right to privacy.” He emphasized that under the Constitution, “parents retain a substantial, if not the dominant, role” in the upbringing and care of their children.
Addressing the rationale behind the secrecy policies, the court acknowledged that although preventing bullying is a legitimate goal, the state’s approach wrongly treats parents as the presumed “harassers from whom students need to be protected” rather than essential partners in a child’s well-being. When it comes to a child’s change in gender identity, the judge noted, California policymakers “do not trust parents to do the right thing for their child. So, the state purposefully interferes with a parent’s access to meaningful information about their child’s gender identity choices.”
In his concluding remarks, Benitez reaffirmed three core principles the state’s policies had undermined.
First, the decision protects children by ensuring parents are not shut out of critical conversations about their well-being. Citing multiple case studies, Benitez noted that children experiencing gender incongruence consistently fare better when parents are actively involved in their care and decision making.
Second, the ruling affirms the constitutional rights of parents, specifically their Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process, which safeguards a parent’s authority to guide their child’s moral, medical and spiritual development; and their First Amendment right to raise their children in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Third, the ruling protects these same First Amendment rights for educators who were placed in an untenable position to choose between complying with state directives and honoring their moral or religious convictions by speaking truthfully and accurately with parents. By striking down the secrecy mandate, the court made clear that teachers cannot be compelled to withhold critical information from parents or act against their conscience.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs welcomed the ruling as a decisive affirmation of constitutional limits. “The state knew this was a losing legal battle and tried to pull out every lawyer’s trick in the book to avoid responsibility,” said Jeffrey M. Trissell, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and attorney at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. “The Court saw right through this blatant gamesmanship. It’s an absurdity that California elected officials went out of their way to deceive parents and punish honest and faithful educators who dared to challenge their twisted political agenda.”
For a list of school districts by state that have Transgender/Gender Nonconforming Policies restricting educators from sharing vital information with parents, see Defending Education.
