A court order giving California teachers full freedom to tell parents about their child\u2019s gender identity at school is on hold after an appellate panel blocked it from going into immediate effect.<\/p>\n
Had the three-member panel not acted, the ruling, by a federal district judge, would have required immediate changes<\/a> to policies at hundreds of school systems up and down the state.<\/p>\n According to data cited in the original ruling, at least 598 of the state\u2019s 1,000 school systems have policies restricting what parents can be told about their child\u2019s gender expression at school \u2014 if the child requests confidentiality. <\/p>\n Los Angeles Unified, the nation\u2019s second-largest school system, is among these school districts.<\/p>\n Across the state, \u201cthe policies apply to children as young as two and as old as seventeen,\u201d U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote in his Dec. 22 ruling<\/a>. \u201cThe policies do not permit teachers to use their own judgment in responding to an inquiring parent. Unless the child consents, the teacher who communicates about a child\u2019s gender incongruity faces adverse employment action.\u201d<\/p>\n Benitez gave state officials 20 days to show that they had notified school districts that such policies are illegal under the U.S. Constitution. <\/p>\n The appellate court\u2019s stay pauses that order while the case continues through the court system.<\/p>\n The latest action does not resolve the case \u2014 nor does it reverse the original ruling. But the appellate judges warned that their stay of the original ruling is based on serious potential flaws in the legal analysis of the San Diego-based Benitez.<\/p>\n In his ruling<\/a> and an accompanying order, Benitez ruled that teachers had free speech and freedom-of-religion rights to tell parents of LGBTQ+ issues affecting their children. Benitez also ruled that parents had a federal constitutional right to such information.<\/p>\n The appellate panel took issue<\/a> with both Benitez\u2019s approach and his reasoning.<\/p>\n The panel questioned the sweep of his Benitez\u2019s ruling, which \u201ccovers every parent of California\u2019s millions of public school students and every public school employee in the state.\u201d<\/p>\n The panel also questioned the judge\u2019s analysis of the facts: \u201cA preliminary review of the record shows that the State does not categorically forbid disclosure of information about students\u2019 gender identities to parents without student consent.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFor example, guidance from the California Attorney General expressly states that schools can \u2018allow disclosure where a student does not consent where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student\u2019s wellbeing,\u2019\u201d the panel wrote in its ruling, which is dated January 5.<\/p>\n The panel also challenged Benitez\u2019s reliance on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision. That ruling gave parents a right to opt their child out of LGBTQ-themed instruction based on religious objections. <\/p>\n The appeals court judges noted that Mahmoud dealt with curriculum and wrote that Benitez was likely applying that case too broadly to an area that did not involve instruction.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs said they would challenge the stay, while also defending the ruling of Benitez.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile the fight continues at the appellate level, we remain confident that our clients\u2019 constitutional rights will ultimately be vindicated,\u201d said Paul Jonna, of the LiMandri & Jonna law firm, which is partnering with Thomas More Society<\/a>, a public-interest law firm.<\/p>\n \u201c<\/b>Parents have a fundamental right, recognized by the Supreme Court for over a century, to direct their children\u2019s upbringing,\u201d Jonna said. \u201cTeachers have a constitutional right to communicate honestly with parents without being forced to deceive them in violation of their faith. California cannot override these rights, and we are prepared to take this case as far as necessary \u2014 including all the way up to the Supreme Court.\u201d<\/p>\n State officials had argued<\/a> that the ruling would cause administrative chaos across California and also would threaten the privacy rights and living situations of LGBTQ+ students who do not have supportive families.<\/p>\n The case involves issues that are either not yet settled under federal law or that are evolving. The philosophical leanings of the judges hearing the case are likely to play a significant role, legal experts said. <\/p>\n Benitez was appointed<\/a> to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush.<\/p>\n