By Michael Phillips | CABayNews / Father & Co.
In a sweeping decision with statewide implications, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled Monday that California’s so-called “parental exclusion” policies—guidance that encouraged schools to conceal a child’s gender identity changes from parents—are unconstitutional.
The ruling, issued December 22, 2025, in Mirabelli et al. v. Olson et al. (Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET/VVG), grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs and permanently blocks California officials from enforcing secrecy directives across the state’s public schools.
For parental-rights advocates, religious-liberty groups, and many teachers, the decision represents one of the most significant court victories in the education culture wars to date.
What the Case Was About
The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by two California teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, represented by the Thomas More Society. It challenged state-backed policies—promoted through guidance documents, FAQs, and training programs such as PRISM—that instructed or encouraged school staff to:
- Use a student’s preferred name and pronouns at school
- Conceal those changes from parents without the student’s consent
- Avoid voluntary disclosure even when parents directly asked questions
The case later expanded into a certified class action, representing California public-school teachers and parents statewide.
Plaintiffs argued the policies violated:
- Parents’ Fourteenth Amendment right to direct their children’s upbringing, education, medical care, and religious formation
- Teachers’ and parents’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion
- Teachers’ First Amendment free-speech rights by compelling deception or silence
The Court’s Core Findings
Judge Benitez found no genuine dispute of material fact, granting summary judgment on multiple claims. In a detailed 52-page opinion, he concluded that California’s parental exclusion policies are unconstitutional on their face.
The ruling leaned heavily on long-standing Supreme Court precedent affirming parental primacy, including Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), Troxel v. Granville (2000), and the recent Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), which reaffirmed that parents—not the state—hold the primary role in a child’s moral, religious, and medical upbringing.
The judge rejected the state’s justification that secrecy was necessary to protect students from possible family rejection or bullying, noting that the policies presumed parental harm without evidence.
Instead, Benitez emphasized what he previously described as a “trifecta of harm”:
- Children are denied parental guidance and support during critical moments
- Parents are kept in the dark about significant developments affecting their child
- Teachers are forced to deceive families or violate their conscience
Expert Evidence Undermined the State’s Case
Notably, the court relied on expert testimony from both sides—including clinicians supportive of transgender-identified youth—showing that early parental involvement is often associated with better mental-health outcomes, while secrecy can increase distress and risk.
The state failed strict scrutiny, the highest constitutional standard. Judge Benitez ruled California’s interests were not compelling enough to override fundamental parental rights and that the policies were not narrowly tailored, offering no religious exemptions and no allowance for voluntary disclosure.
A Permanent, Statewide Injunction
In a separate order, the court issued a class-wide permanent injunction binding state officials, including:
- Rob Bonta, California Attorney General
- Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent
- Members of the State Board of Education and their agents
The injunction prohibits enforcement of policies that:
- Require or permit misleading parents about a child’s gender presentation
- Block teachers from voluntarily informing parents of gender incongruity
- Force the use of non-biological names or pronouns while concealing that from parents over religious objections
- Deny parents access to related educational records
The state must also notify school personnel and update training materials to explicitly affirm that federal parental and teacher rights supersede conflicting state or local laws under the Supremacy Clause.
Why This Matters Beyond California
The ruling affects an estimated 300,000 teachers and more than six million students in the nation’s largest public-school system. While it does not mandate disclosure in every situation, it ends state-enforced secrecy and restores teachers’ ability to communicate honestly with parents.
For Father & Co. readers, the decision lands squarely at the intersection of parental authority, due process, and government overreach. It reinforces a principle many families say has been eroding for years: schools are partners in education, not replacements for parents.
Media Silence and What’s Being Missed
Despite its scope, the decision has received limited coverage from major national outlets as of December 23. Reporting has largely been confined to conservative and legal commentary sources.
What remains underreported:
- The court’s reliance on expert evidence—including from transgender clinicians—supporting parental involvement
- Real-world harms cited in the record where secrecy worsened child outcomes
- The direct conflict with California’s 2024 legislation restricting parental notification
Whether due to timing, politics, or discomfort with the outcome, the lack of mainstream attention stands in contrast to the ruling’s significance.
What Comes Next
As a district-court ruling, the decision is likely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Judge Benitez, a conservative appointee, has been reversed before—particularly in firearms cases—but his opinion is closely grounded in Supreme Court precedent.
For now, however, the ruling stands as a major rebuke of state-mandated secrecy and a clear reaffirmation that parents’ constitutional rights do not end at the schoolhouse door.
For CABayNews, it is a legal development with immediate statewide consequences. For Father & Co., it is a reminder that transparency, parental involvement, and due process remain central to child well-being—no matter how politically inconvenient those principles may be.
California Bay News 
Leave a comment