California school district takes lawsuit to the highest court in the United States, arguing that teacher unions and the state labor commission cannot block the implementation of the “parental notification policy” – because the Constitution empowers parents to know when their children are trying to change their gender identity and name at school.
On April 14, Rocklin Unified School District in Placer County, California, requested the Supreme Court to intervene in the case. Initially, the Rocklin Teachers Association vetoed the district’s parental rights protection policy based on an agreement signed with the school board. At the end of January 2025, the California Public Employment Relations Board ruled in favor of the teachers’ union. Subsequently, Rocklin District appealed to the California Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court, both of which refused to hear the case.
The California Justice Center and the Liberty Justice Center, representing the Rocklin Unified School District in their request for a review by the high court, stated that the legality of the district’s policy is fundamentally not within the jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations Board.
Rocklin Unified School District is located in the northeast of the state capital of California and oversees 18 schools with nearly 12,000 registered students. In September 2023, the district introduced the “parental notification policy,” requiring schools to notify parents when students attempt “social transition” on campus (which usually does not involve gender transition drugs or surgery). The district reiterated parental notification rights: if a child requests to present themselves as a different gender, use a different name or pronouns, or use school facilities such as bathrooms that do not match their biological gender, their parents must be notified.
Although this policy falls under “non-mandatory bargaining items,” meaning it is unrelated to employment terms such as teacher salaries, work hours, and working conditions, the Public Employment Relations Board still issued a ruling favoring the union. The board is an independent state-level quasi-judicial administrative agency under the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, responsible for collective bargaining for K-12 public schools, community colleges, universities, as well as state and local government employees.
In the case of “Rocklin Unified School District v. Public Employment Relations Board,” Emily Rae, the chair of the California Justice Center, stated, “The teachers’ union is using the labor commission platform to push a political agenda, sacrificing the interests of parents, school district committees, and the entire Rocklin community.” She further emphasized that “the authority of the Public Employment Relations Board is limited to resolving labor disputes and not adjudicating legal issues at the constitutional level.”
The petition filed by the plaintiffs to the Supreme Court also pointed out, “…allowing the decision of the labor commission to take effect means that the union can sue the school district for any policies they are unhappy with, merely by claiming a procedural violation of the collective bargaining agreement.”
On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of “Mirabelli v. Bonta” that parents are the “primary guardians to protect the best interests of their children,” not the schools; school policies that “withhold information from parents and promote some degree of gender transition” violate the “rights of parents to guide, nurture, and educate their children.”
A lawsuit brought by California parents and teachers against California Attorney General Rob Bonta was subsequently remanded to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for further substantive review. The decision of the high court indicates that even when faced with state government policies aimed at safeguarding student privacy or safety, the rights of parents protected by the Constitution remain valid.
In February 2025, the Liberty Justice Center announced the victory of the case they represented, “Bonta v. Chino Valley,” where Bonta issued an injunction requiring the school district to stop the “parental notification” policy. Bonta did not appeal this case. However, the AB1955 law, which took effect in California in January 2025, requires schools not to inform parents and mandates all school districts to revoke existing “parental notification” policies.