A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked the enforcement of a California law that prohibits school staff from informing parents about changes to their child’s gender identity without the student’s consent.
In 2024, eight parents and the City of Huntington Beach filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California, Santa Ana federal court, challenging Assembly Bill (AB) 1955.
The plaintiffs took issue with the legislation because it prohibited school districts and employees from disclosing a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the student’s consent.
In two previous decisions, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, citing a lack of Article III standing.
In a stunning turn of judicial events, the federal appellate court reversed its position on June 18 and granted a preliminary injunction that partially blocks AB 1955.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a powerful vindication of parental rights, according to America First Legal (AFL) attorneys who represented the City of Huntington Beach and the plaintiff parents.
The federal appellate court’s new position unfolded after a Mirabelli v. Bonta U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued in March vacated the Ninth Circuit’s previous two stays.
The panel of Ninth Circuit justices who presided over City of Huntington Beach v. Gov. Gavin Newsom were Daniel P. Collins, Kenneth K. Lee, and Lucy Koh.
“In light of Mirabelli, the Movants are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim, including the required threshold showing of Article III standing,” their 10-page decision states. “Standing requires (1) an injury-in-fact (2) that is traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and (3) that would likely be redressed by a favorable decision.”
Article III standing derives from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which limits federal courts to hearing only actual cases or controversies rather than hypothetical or political arguments.
Under Mirabelli v. Bonta, the nation’s highest court invoked the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in establishing that parents’ have the constitutional right of primary authority over their children’s upbringing and mental health and not the state.
The U.S. Supreme Court further established that the substantive due process right of parents “to direct the upbringing and education of their children” “includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health,” which includes the right to information known to the school about whether “a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school.”
“There is no contention that any of the Movants are unfit parents who present a risk of abuse if they are provided with information about their children exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria,” the Ninth Circuit ruling states.
The plaintiff parents are now empowered to seek and receive information from school employees if their children exhibit symptoms of gender dysphoria at school.
