This week on Tuesday (15th), a judge in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Southern California, ruled to uphold the injunction against the Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) policy, which prohibits them from notifying parents about students’ gender changes; if parents inquire, the school must truthfully answer, in accordance with the guidance provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in March.
Judge Michael Sachs reiterated that schools are not allowed to proactively inform parents about students’ gender identity, pronouns, or official name changes. He emphasized that mandatory disclosure policies for transgender or gender nonconforming students are “discriminatory.”
Sonja Shaw, Chair of the Chino Valley School Board and candidate for California Director of Education, stated, “We just want to inform parents about what’s happening with their children… that’s why we are standing firm in this fight for justice.”
Deputy Attorney General Delbert Tran argued that the district’s policy exceeds the scope accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of Mirabelli v. Bonta.
In April 2024, two teachers from the Escondido Union School District (EUSD), including Mirabelli, filed a federal lawsuit against the district, State Attorney General Bonta, and Governor Newsom for requiring teachers to conceal students’ gender information from parents. In September, Southern District of California Judge Roger Benitez approved a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, prohibiting teachers from concealing students’ gender changes from parents.
The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the injunction was suspended; in March of this year, the Supreme Court’s ruling reinstated the injunction.
On July 20, 2023, the Chino Valley School District passed a “Parental Notification Policy” with a 4:1 vote, requiring notification of parents when minors request to use a name, pronouns, or school facilities that differ from their birth gender, or when they request changes to school records.
In August, Bonta sued the Chino Valley School District to immediately halt the policy disclosing student gender changes; in early September, Judge Thomas S. Garza of the San Bernardino County Superior Court issued a stay on the policy, citing potential violations of student privacy.
In October, Judge Sachs issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the district’s policy but allowing parental notification when official records are changed, such as a girl transitioning to a boy.
In March 2024, the Chino Valley School Board voted to update the policy: if a child requests changes to official or unofficial records, the school must notify parents within three days, while removing the provision that parents be notified when students use different gender names, pronouns, or school facilities.
From 2023 to 2024, over a dozen school districts in California passed similar policies, prompting Democratic lawmakers in the state to introduce Assembly Bill 1955 as a countermeasure. On July 15, 2024, Newsom signed AB1955 into law, prohibiting all school districts, boards, charter schools, or institutions from implementing policies that disclose student gender to parents and requiring districts to rescind contradictory policies.
The following day, the Liberty Justice Center representing the Chino Valley School District sued Newsom to prevent the enforcement of AB1955. The plaintiffs also included several parents, the Anderson Unified High School District (AUHSD), and the Orange County Board of Education.
The lawsuit argues that AB1955 infringes on parents’ rights to raise and instruct their children under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as rights related to religious freedom and practice under the First Amendment, conflicting with the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act by obstructing parents’ access to student information. The litigation is ongoing, and as of January 1, 2025, AB1955 went into effect.
In March of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6:3 in the case of Mirabelli v. Bonta, supporting the parents’ claims of violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but did not block AB1955.
In April, the Rocklin Unified School District in Northern California petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a lower court decision that allowed unions to veto parental notification policies, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
However, the Supreme Court’s stance on these types of cases indicates that it may intervene in policies regarding parental notification of student gender changes, especially concerning parental rights, religious freedom, and student privacy issues.