In a definitive judgment on December 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez issued a permanent injunction against the state of California, effectively preventing schools from withholding information about students’ gender identities from their parents. This ruling emerged from a class-action lawsuit initiated by Escondido Union School District teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West in April 2023, which later expanded to represent a broader constituency of parents, teachers, and school districts across California.
"Children do not belong to the government, parents have the right to know what’s happening with their own kids, and teachers should never be forced to lie or stay silent to keep their jobs." – Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council
The plaintiffs contested the “Parental Exclusion Policies,” which obliged school staff to address students by their preferred names and pronouns in school settings while reverting to legal names and biological pronouns in communications with parents. The teachers involved maintained that such requirements contravened their moral and religious convictions.
In his 52-page opinion, Judge Benitez, appointed by President George W. Bush, scrutinized the constitutional rights of parents under the Fourteenth Amendment to be informed about their children's gender identity. He also reviewed the rights of teachers concerning free exercise and free speech. The court sided with the plaintiffs, affirming parental authority and safeguarding teacher rights.
The decision has come to the forefront of national attention, particularly following California Governor Gavin Newsom's controversial statements earlier in the month and his consistent endorsement of policies that support student-led decisions on identity matters. These policies have been under fire from various quarters for potentially undermining parental involvement and complicating the roles of educators.
Judge Benitez emphasized the potential harm to children who may be deprived of necessary parental guidance and mental health support due to non-disclosure of gender incongruence. He pointed out the detrimental effects of keeping such critical information from families.
In reaction to the ruling, Mirabelli and West expressed profound gratitude, highlighting the importance of honesty and transparency in the relationship between educators and families. They underscored the moral dilemma they faced when asked to withhold information from parents, which they viewed as a breach of faith and trust.
The ruling was lauded as a significant victory for parental rights by supporters. California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt articulated the widespread sentiment among proponents of the decision, stressing the fundamental right of parents to be informed about their children's well-being and the inappropriateness of compelling teachers to deceive or remain silent.
However, not all responses to the ruling were positive. State officials, including Attorney General Rob Bonta, contested the decision, claiming the potential for “severe public harms” and a possible reduction in the reporting of bullying or mental health issues. They have applied to stay the injunction pending an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
The case marks a pivotal moment with possible repercussions for gender identity policies in schools across the nation. It represents a stark challenge to strategies like those favored by Gov. Newsom that prioritize student autonomy over parental engagement.
