Law & Courts

Schools Can’t Bar Teachers From Telling Parents If Kids Are Transgender, Judge Rules

By Kristen Taketa, The San Diego Union-Tribune — December 24, 2025 | Updated: January 02, 2026 5 min read
Teacher’s aide Amelia Mester, wrapped in a Pride flag, urges Escondido Union High School District not to have employees notify parents if they believe a student may be transgender in November 2025. A policy on the issue in the city’s elementary school district is the subject of a federal class-action lawsuit in which a judge just sided against the district.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Updated: A panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 26, 2025, temporarily blocked this ruling from taking effect and will decide whether to grant a longer-term pause. Read more.

Parents have a constitutional right to be informed if their child changes their gender presentation at school, and schools can’t hide that information from parents, a federal judge in San Diego ruled in a class-action lawsuit.

In a 52-page decision handed down Monday night, Judge Roger Benitez ruled that parents have a constitutional right to know if their child may be transgender and that California public schools cannot in any way prevent employees from notifying parents. In a separate order, he barred them from violating that right.

The injunction bans any public school employee from misleading parents about their child’s gender presentation at school, such as by using different pronouns or names with a parent than the student uses at school. The ruling also bars employees from calling students by names or pronouns that don’t match their legal ones if their parents object.

See Also

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon speaks to reporters at the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon speaks to reporters at the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025. McMahon said that the U.S. Department of Education would make a "revitalized effort" to pursue federal student privacy law violations for parents' rights, asserting that school "gender plans" that aren't available to parents violate the federal law.
Ben Curtis/AP

The state, which is defending the case, has already appealed and asked for a stay of Benitez’s decision. State attorneys said his injunction could bring significant harm to students by having schools out them without their consent.

“The Court’s sweeping injunction, which forecloses enforcement of state constitutional and statutory protections applicable in the school environment, inflicts severe and indisputable irreparable harm on California,” lawyers with Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office wrote in their request.

Monday’s decision caps a lawsuit filed in April 2023 by two now-former Escondido Union School District teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West. Citing their Christian faith, the two challenged their district’s policy barring school employees from telling parents about a student’s transgender status without the student’s consent, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights.

The case has primarily been defended by the state, since Escondido based its policy off state guidance. The district has since changed its policy because of the litigation and no longer bars parental notification.

In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Benitez, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote that it’s wrong to deprive parents of significant information that may affect their child’s well-being and health. He also said the First Amendment protects teachers’ right to inform them.

Throughout his ruling, Benitez repeatedly invoked the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the justices sided with religious parents who wanted to opt their children out of reading books with LGBTQ+ content in public schools.

See Also

Demonstrators are seen outside the Supreme Court as oral arguments were heard in Mahmoud v. Taylor on April 22, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The case contends that forcing students to participate in LGBTQ+ learning material violates First Amendment rights to exercise religious beliefs.
Demonstrators stand outside the Supreme Court as oral arguments are heard in <i>Mahmoud</i> v. <i>Taylor</i> on April 22, 2025, in Washington. The case contends that forcing students to be exposed to LGBTQ+ curricular material violates parents' First Amendment rights to exercise their religious beliefs.
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
Law & Courts Supreme Court Sides With Parents in LGBTQ+ Curriculum Opt-Out Case
Mark Walsh, June 27, 2025
7 min read

“We believe that the district court misapplied the law and that the decision will ultimately be reversed on appeal,” a spokesperson for Bonta’s office said in an email Tuesday. “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.”

The teachers’ attorney Paul Jonna, special counsel with the conservative law firm the Thomas More Society, applauded the ruling.

“Today’s incredible victory finally, and permanently, ends California’s dangerous and unconstitutional regime of gender secrecy policies in schools,” he said in a statement. “The Court’s comprehensive ruling—granting summary judgment on all claims—protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense.”

Meanwhile LGBTQ+ legal advocacy group Equality California called the decision dangerous, saying it broadly targets multiple state laws and protections for transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

“These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear,” said Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang in a statement.

State officials have argued that telling parents of possible changes to their child’s gender without the student’s permission would violate trust between students and teachers that is needed for a safe learning environment.

“A fear of nonconsensual disclosure can not only harm a student academically, but disincentivizes the type of open communication that allows the student to report instances of harm, bullying, or depression,” state attorneys said in their stay request.

State attorneys have also argued that outing a student to parents could put them at risk of abuse.

But Benitez wrote that it’s wrong to assume that and said most parents want the best for their children. He suggested that being transgender involves health problems, such as mental health issues, and parents need to be able to seek medical care for their child.

His ruling cited testimony from Erica Anderson, a psychologist known for being critical of the number of young people identifying as transgender and saying they should not transition without their parents’ support.

In his ruling, Benitez also described having a transgender child as a burden to parents.

“The difficult and long-lasting issues of gender nonconformity leave parents to suffer adverse consequences over a lifetime. The State Defendants … will not be exposed to a lifetime of a student’s mental health issues. Instead, that will be the parents’ grief to bear alone,” he wrote.

Hoang, of Equality California, said that parents should be involved in their children’s lives but such conversations about a child’s gender identity should happen when families are ready.

“California’s student protections recognize the importance of family involvement, while also acknowledging that forcing a student to come out before they are ready can cause harm,” Hoang said.

Since the former Escondido teachers filed their lawsuit in 2023, the state education department has backtracked on its policy regarding notifying parents.

The agency used to say on its website that public school employees must not tell parents or others about a student’s transgender status without the student’s consent.

It removed that guidance this year following a new state law, AB 1955, that bars schools from requiring staff to notify parents about a student’s gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation without the student’s consent.

That law does not go as far as to say that school employees must not tell parents. It only prohibits schools from requiring employees to do so.

Copyright (c) 2025, The San Diego Union-Tribune. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Artificial Intelligence Webinar
Managing AI in Schools: Practical Strategies for Districts
How should districts govern AI in schools? Learn practical strategies for policies, safety, transparency, as well as responsible adoption.
Content provided by Lightspeed Systems
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
Unlocking Success for Struggling Adolescent Readers
The Science of Reading transformed K-3 literacy. Now it's time to extend that focus to students in grades 6 through 12.
Content provided by STARI
Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and K-12 education jubs at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court to Weigh Birthright Citizenship. Why It Matters to Schools
The justices will review President Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, a move that could affect schools.
4 min read
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order to on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the legality of Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship, another immigration policy that could affect schools.
Evan Vucci/AP
Law & Courts 20 States Push Back as Ed. Dept. Hands Programs to Other Agencies
The Trump admin. says it wants to prove that moving programs out of the Ed. Dept. can work long-term.
4 min read
Education Secretary Linda McMahon appears before the House Appropriation Panel about the 2026 budget in Washington, D.C., on May 21, 2025.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon appears before a U.S. House of Representatives panel in Washington on May 21, 2025. McMahon's agency has inked seven agreements shifting core functions, including Title I for K-12 schools, to other federal agencies. Those moves, announced in November, have now drawn a legal challenge.
Jason Andrew for Education Week
Law & Courts A New Twist in the Legal Battle Over Trump's Cancellation of Teacher-Prep Grants
A district court judge says she'll decide if the Trump administration broke the law.
4 min read
Instructional coach Kristi Tucker posts notes to the board during a team meeting at Ford Elementary School in Laurens, S.C., on March 10, 2025.
Instructional coach Kristi Tucker posts notes to the board during a team meeting at Ford Elementary School in Laurens, S.C., on March 10, 2025. The grant funding this training work was among three teacher-preparation grant programs largely terminated by the Trump administration in its first weeks. Eight states filed a lawsuit challenging terminations in two of those programs, and a judge on Thursday said she couldn't restore the discontinued grants but could rule on whether the Trump administration acted legally.
Bryant Kirk White for Education Week
Law & Courts Educational Toymakers Sued Over Trump Tariffs. How Is the Supreme Court Leaning?
Most justices appeared skeptical of President Trump's tariff policies, challenged by two educational toymakers.
3 min read
People arrive to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Washington.
People arrive to attend oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Washington. The court heard arguments in a major case on President Donald Trump's tariff policies, which are being challenged by two educational toy companies.
AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein