Federal Judge Delivers Crushing Defeat to California’s Radical Gender Secrecy Agenda, Permanently Restores Parental Rights

Adopted in hundreds of school districts under guidance from the California Department of Education (CDE), these rules mandated teachers to affirm students’ preferred names and pronouns at school—even for toddlers—while actively concealing this from parents unless the child consented. 

Teachers faced discipline or firing for refusing to lie, treating parental involvement as potential “abuse.”

The case began with two Christian teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, from Escondido Union School District. Joined by anonymous parents whose kids suffered irreversible harm from secret transitions—including one family discovering the truth only after a suicide attempt—the lawsuit exposed how California Democrats/bureaucrats overrode parents’ fundamental rights when Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1955 into law in July 2024.

In his blistering 52-page opinion (see below), Judge Benitez demolished the state’s defenses, declaring parental rights as “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, he affirmed: “The constitutional question is whether being involved in potentially serious medical or psychological decision-making for their school student is a parent’s constitutional right. It is.” 

Benitez shredded the presumption that parents are threats, stating plainly: “Disagreement is not abuse, and the court so finds.” He cited undisputed expert evidence that family involvement improves outcomes for gender-dysphoric youth, while secrecy exacerbates risks like suicide and alienation (emphasis added).

Benitez reserved special scorn for California’s education elites: “California’s education policymakers may be experts on primary and secondary education but they would not receive top grades as students of Constitutional Law.” 

The “Parental Exclusion Policies” failed strict scrutiny, as no compelling interest justifies trampling federal rights under the Supremacy Clause. He described the rules as a “trifecta of harm”: damaging children by denying guidance, robbing parents of their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and coercing teachers to violate their faith that gender is God-ordained and lying is sinful.

On teachers’ claims, Benitez ruled the policies weren’t neutral, but trampled religious beliefs without justification.

“Compelling teacher Plaintiffs to observe the State’s parental exclusion policies or leave their employment… works a substantial burden on the teacher Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free exercise.”

The permanent injunction bars Bonta, the CDE, and state officials from enforcing secrecy mandates. It requires trainings to prominently declare parents’ and teachers’ superior constitutional rights to transparency, overriding conflicting state laws.

In a press release, the Thomas More Society added:

The case also revealed the extreme lengths California education officials went to evade responsibility. They misled the court by claiming these policies were no longer enforced, only to be caught red-handed enforcing them in mandatory teacher training a week before the summary judgment hearing on November 17. As a result, the Court’s order specifically directs California to add the following statement “in a prominent place” in that training:

Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. 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. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.

Plaintiffs celebrated the triumph over Democrats’ radical ideology. 

Mirabelli and West stated: “We are profoundly grateful for today’s ruling. This has been a long and difficult journey… We loved our jobs, our students, and the school communities we served. 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. This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents.”

Paul M. Jonna of the Thomas More Society, representing the plaintiffs, declared: “Today’s incredible victory finally, and permanently, ends California’s dangerous and unconstitutional regime of gender secrecy policies in schools… The Court’s comprehensive ruling protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense.”

This ruling also affirms Elon Musk’s statement after AB 1955 was signed:

At the time, The Globe reported that Elon Musk moved his companies out of California to Texas in response to the bill.

In a recent interview with author and professor Jordan Peterson, Musk opened up about his struggles with his adolescent child who came out as transgender.

In the interview, he describes how his son became a victim of the “woke mind virus” as a minor. Musk says he was told his son would commit suicide if he did not sign all of the papers allowing for his son to go on puberty blockers. Musk went as far to say that he felt his son was, for all intents and purposes, dead. “I lost my son. They call it ‘deadnaming’ for a reason. The reason it’s called ‘deadnaming’ is because, your son is dead. So my son is dead, killed by the woke mind virus,” Musk stated.

Clearly still hurt and traumatized by his own family’s experience, Elon Musk made his decision after the signing of AB 1955 as a sort of protest at the erosion of parental rights and the targeting of the family unit.

It began when schools began teaching and indoctrinating students with pseudo-science and radical gender theory. Then parents, like Musk, were targeted with scare tactics of their children committing self harm or suicide if they did not prescribe to the school’s plan to care for their child.

Now the parent is slowly being removed from the equation altogether. Soon the message will become that the school, and by extension the government, is the true caretaker and children will no longer view their parents as a valid authority at all.

State officials, caught misleading the court about enforcement, may appeal—but the injunction holds. As Benitez concluded, federal rights prevail: state radicalism must yield.

For California’s families, this pre-Christmas decision reaffirms that parents—not bureaucrats or activists—direct their children’s upbringing. A resounding win for truth, faith, family, and the U.S. Constitution.