A federal judge has struck down California’s AB 1955, a law that attempted to require teachers to conceal students’ asserted gender changes from parents, ruling those provisions unconstitutional and affirming parents’ and teachers’ federal constitutional rights to know and speak the truth about a child’s gender incongruence.
California’s AB 1955, passed amid a wave of progressive policies, sought to force teachers to affirm students’ gender identities while keeping those changes secret from parents. The law required school employees to use students’ chosen names and pronouns at school and to withhold that information from parents in certain circumstances. The legal challenge argued the statute effectively compelled teachers to lie to parents and denied parents their constitutional rights regarding their children’s welfare and education.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued a summary judgment that delivered a clear rebuke to Sacramento’s political leadership, finding the law unconstitutional. The ruling emphasized that federal constitutional rights of parents and teachers outweigh state or local rules that would force deception. That’s a win for parental authority and for common-sense limits on government power in schools.
Judge Benitez’s opinion uses firm language to lay out the priorities the Constitution protects. He wrote plainly about the federal constitutional right of parents to be informed when their child expresses gender incongruence at school. At the same time, he affirmed teachers’ rights to communicate accurately with parents, rejecting any state attempt to force secrecy or falsehood from school staff.
Included in the opinion are specific prohibitions on state interference with truthful communication between school employees and parents. The decision enjoins California from permitting employees to mislead parents about a child’s gender presentation at school by directly lying, restricting access to educational records, or intentionally using different names or pronouns with parents than used at school. Those practices were central to the challenge and now are barred under this ruling.
The opinion also protects teachers who object on conscientious or religious grounds from being compelled to use names or pronouns that conflict with a child’s legal name and natal pronouns when the state would hide a social gender transition from the parents. That protection recognizes both parental and employee rights and prevents the state from weaponizing schools to separate parents from important information about their children.
Judge Benitez stated: “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.”
The ruling addresses concrete practices that had become policy in some districts, like using different pronouns with parents than with students or barring parental access to records to conceal a child’s asserted identity. The court made clear such maneuvers cannot stand when they conflict with constitutional rights. That restores a baseline expectation: parents are primary in decisions about their children.
California’s political leaders pushed AB 1955 as a protection for vulnerable students, but the court found its means overstepped constitutional limits. The decision reasserts that protecting children does not equate to excluding parents, and that any state policy that does so will face strict scrutiny when it clashes with fundamental parental rights. The judgment demands transparency where parents’ rights and children’s welfare intersect.
The judgment also contains language preventing the state from interfering with school employees who communicate to parents about manifestations of gender incongruity, such as changes in preferred names or pronouns. That prevents administrative policies from chilling truthful conversations and shields educators who choose to be forthright with families despite pressure from higher-ups.
Practically, the injunction halts enforcement of the most controversial parts of AB 1955 and sends a strong message to other states considering similar statutes. Courts across the country will watch whether this ruling becomes persuasive precedent as legal battles over parental rights and school policies continue. For now, the decision strengthens the constitutional role of parents in their children’s upbringing.
Embedded materials from social platforms and related documentation appear in the original reporting and are preserved here for reference where they originally appeared.
In a first-of-its-kind, class-wide, precedent-setting victory, a federal court has permanently blocked California AG Rob Bonta and the CA Dept. of Education from forcing teachers to lie to parents about their own children’s secret gender transitions—declaring parents have a constitutional right to know and teachers have a constitutional right to share the truth.
Incredibly important and great ruling from Saint Roger Benitez – San Diego US District Court Judge – protecting all California children and their parents, and slamming the depraved CA AG @RobBonta@GavinNewsom who have and will do anything – with CA’s taxpayer money – to separate young children from their parents, support hidden gender altering surgeries, etc. Kudos to my buddy attorney @PaulJonna on this getting this tremendous ruling.
a): permit or require any employee in the California state-wide education system from misleading the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school, whether by: (i) directly lying to the parent; (ii) preventing the parent from accessing educational records of the child; or (iii) using a different set of preferred pronouns/names when speaking with the parents than is being used at school;
(c): require any employee in the California state-wide education system to use a name or pronoun to refer to a child that do not match the child’s legal name and natal pronouns while concealing that social gender transition from the child’s parents, over the employee’s conscientious or religious objection;
(d): or in any way interfere with a teacher or other school administrator, counselor or staff from communicating to parents that his, her, or their child has manifested a form of gender incongruity such as changing preferred names or pronouns.
“IT IS SO ORDERED,” wrote Judge Benitez. Thank you, Roger, for this most excellent Christmas present.
Add comment