Federal Judge Ruled That Teachers Could ‘Out’ Kids To Their Parents – An Appeals Court Blocked That Decision
In late December, California teachers were given the green light to inform parents about student’s gender identity – that ruling is now on pause.
Featured image: Rafa Fernandez Torres via Getty Images
In April 2023, two California teachers, Lori Ann West and Elizabeth Mirabelli, filed a federal lawsuit against the Escondido Union School District and the California State Board of Education to win the right to inform parents about their child’s gender identity at school. They objected to school district policy, based on state-created privacy guidelines, that prohibited them from disclosing information related to a student’s gender identity without the child consent. Mirabelli and West, both Roman Catholics, were represented by the Thomas More Society and sought religious exemption from following district policy.
On December 22, 2025, a federal judge decided in their favor, ruling that school staff members are free to alert parents to the LGBTQ+ identity of their children. The state appealed the decision; and on December 27, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s ruling, granting a temporary stay to keep the current policy in place pending further legal review.
In favoring the two California teachers and related plaintiffs, Judge Benitez had reflected on parental rights to direct the care and religious upbringing of their child. Drawing on the concept of the “enduring American tradition,” he examined questions that included whether parents have a right to gender information that is protected by the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause.
Related: Trump Administration Sues California For Refusing To Ban Trans Athletes
The Court concluded: “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 wrote: “Historically, school teachers informed parents of physical injuries or questions about a student’s health and well-being… But for something as significant as a student’s expressed change of gender, California public school parents end up left in the dark. When it comes to a student’s change in gender identity, California state policymakers apparently do not trust parents to do the right thing for their child.”
The judge stated that California has purposefully interfered with a parent’s access to meaningful information about their child’s gender identity choices. State Defendants explained that these policies are needed to prevent bullying and harassment. While the judge found that to be laudable, he indicated that “parent exclusion policies seem to presume that it is the parents who will be the harassers from whom students need to be protected.”
Ultimately, the case (Mirabelli, et al. v. Olson, et al.) was granted class-action status – to be applied throughout the state – and to include other teachers and parents.
In its appeal, the Attorney General of California asserted that the decision suspended “enforcing longstanding state laws that protect vulnerable transgender and gender nonconforming students.” Furthermore, if the decision were to be enforced before the appeal was reviewed, the orders would “irrevocably alter the status quo” and would “create chaos and confusion among students, parents, teachers, and staff at California’s public schools.”
Related: California Becomes First State To Ban Outing Queer Students
The confusion would stem largely from the fact that Judge Benitez’s ruling stands in contradiction to recently enacted legislation. In July 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed off on a law that prohibited forced outing policies in schools. Known as the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth (SAFETY Act), the bill was a response to multiple instances in which California school boards passed policies mandating parental notification. It was designed to create a safe and supportive environment for all students, regardless of gender identity, provide resources for parents, guardians, and families of LGBTQ+ students to navigate conversations around gender and identity, and to prevent retaliation against teachers who protect students’ privacy. The underpinnings of that legislation now rest on precarious ground.
For the moment, student privacy remains (temporarily) protected. Next step: the appeals court has requested that both sides submit arguments on whether a longer stay should be granted while the appeal is considered.
