Parents Win Major Victory in California Public Schools in Gender Change Case

We have been discussing the efforts of school officials around the country to block information for parents on their children changing their gender in public schools, including a recent victory for parents in Michigan. I have long been a critic of such attacks on parental rights in our schools. Now, parents have another major victory in California from District Court Judge Roger Benitez, who offered a resounding ruling in support of the inherent rights of all parents. However, public school boards, administrators, and teachers’ unions are continuing the fight to bar parents from knowing about gender changes in their children. Nevertheless, it is a great way to end this year for everyone who values family and parental rights.

The court cuts straight to the point in the opinion:

“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.”

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.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly cited such parental rights, but school officials and teachers’ unions have been unrelenting in curtailing or denying such rights.

That view was captured in the comment of Iowa school board member Rachel Wall, who said: “The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.”

State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) tweeted: “If parents want to ‘have a say’ in their child’s education, they should home school or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.”

Parents who question unpopular policies are often treated as extremists.

Michelle Leete, vice president of training at the Virginia PTA and vice president of communications for the Fairfax County PTA, said parents would not force them to reverse their agenda: “Let them die. Don’t let these uncomfortable people deter us from our bold march forward.”

I particularly like this paragraph from Judge Benitez’s decision:

“The State Defendants mix up legal constructs. The Attorney General on behalf of the State of California says Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is “properly understood as seeking a federal constitutional exemption from the California constitutional right to privacy, as applied to gender identity in the school context.” State Defs’ Oppo to Plaintiffs’ MSJ, Dkt 256, at 9. But the Attorney General gets it upside down. Plaintiffs do not ask the State to magnanimously permit a sort of federal constitutional exemption. What Plaintiffs seek is to force the State to respect their enduring federal constitutional rights as citizens of the United States.”

Bravo, Judge Benitez, Bravo.

Here is the decision: Mirabelli v. Olson