Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
A federal judge has ended California’s government school policy of keeping child gender issues a secret from parents.
In a landmark class-action ruling in the case of Mirabelli, et al. v. Olson, et al., U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez decided Monday that California’s gender secrecy policies are unconstitutional.
The case involves two veteran Christian teachers, represented by the Thomas More Society, who were forced by California’s Parental Exclusion Policies to use opposite-sex pronouns and new names for children claiming to identify with a gender different from their biological sex. Additionally, the teachers were forced to hide a child’s so-called gender transition from the parents unless the child gave consent to do so.
“We loved our jobs, our students, and the school communities we served,” said teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West in a statement. “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. No educator should ever be placed in that situation.”
“This victory is not just ours,” the teachers said. “It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents. We are so thankful that this chapter is finally closed and that justice has prevailed.”
In his opinion, Benitez got right to the heart of the matter:
The role of a parent includes a duty to recognize symptoms of illness and to seek medical advice … These rights are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution …
With these longstanding principles in mind, this case presents the following four questions about a parent’s rights to information as against a public school’s policy of secrecy when it comes to a student’s gender identification. First, do parents have a right to gender information based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause? Second, do parents have a right to gender information protected by the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause? Third, do religious public school teachers have a right to provide gender information to parents based on the First Amendment’s free exercise clause? Fourth, do public school teachers have a right to communicate accurate gender information to parents based on the First Amendment free speech clause? In each case, this Court concludes that, as a matter of law, the answer is “yes.” Parents have a right to receive gender information and teachers have a right to provide to parents accurate information about a child’s gender identity.
The judge ordered California officials to add the following statement, “in a prominent place,” in mandatory teacher training sessions:
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.
Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP, called the ruling an “incredible victory” that “finally, and permanently, ends California’s dangerous and unconstitutional regime of gender secrecy policies in schools.”
“The Court’s comprehensive ruling—granting summary judgment on all claims—protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense,” Jonna said. “With this decisive ruling from Judge Benitez, all state and local school officials that mandate gender secrecy policies should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences.”
Law professor, author, and legal analyst Jonathan Turley highlighted the case in a post on his website, asserting the opinion is “a great way to end this year for everyone who values family and parental rights.”
“Judge Benitez relies on a quote that we have previously discussed from Troxel v. Granville (2000): ‘It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder,’” Turley quoted. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly cited such parental rights, but school officials and teachers’ unions have been unrelenting in curtailing or denying such rights.”
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
