A federal judge on Tuesday blocked enforcement of controversial legislation in California that bars teachers and school staff from informing parents of any changes to their child’s “gender identity” or use of “preferred pronouns” in school. The ruling could prove significant, as several additional states and Democrat-controlled jurisdictions have long upheld similar policies.
U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez on Monday, December 22, issued a ruling blocking the enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill 1955 (AB 1955), also known as the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act (SAFETY Act).
AB 1955, authored by Democrat Assemblymember Chris Ward, was signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom in July 2024 and took effect on January 1 of this year. Ward claimed the bill was meant to address “privacy and safety” concerns of LGBT students in California schools.
The law prohibits school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and state special schools from enacting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation that requires an employee or contractor to disclose a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent, unless otherwise required by law. This includes parents and/or guardians.
It also protects school employees from retaliation if they refuse to disclose such information.
Critics of the legislation filed a class-action lawsuit, Mirabelli v. Olson, a class-action lawsuit challenging the law’s provisions on parental notification in public schools regarding students’ gender identity. In a 52-page opinion, Judge Benitez granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and imposed a permanent injunction, preventing the state from implementing or enforcing the policies outlined in AB 1955.
Benitez found that the provisions outlined in AB 1955 are unconstitutional and stressed the importance of parental involvement in the education of their own children.
“Parental involvement in essential to the healthy maturation of schoolchildren. California’s public school system parental exclusion policies place a communication barrier between parents and teachers,” the judge wrote in his conclusion.
“Some parents who do not want such barriers may have the wherewithal to place their children in private schools or homeschool, or to move to a different public school district. Families in middle or lower socio-economic circumstances have no such options. For these parents, the new policy appears to undermine their own constitutional rights while it conflicts with knowledgeable medical opinion,” he added.
BREAKING: Roger T. Benitez, a Bush-appointed district judge, issued an order BANNING the state of California from enforcing policies that required schools to hide a child’s gender identity from parents.
Schools can no longer keep critical information about students secret from… pic.twitter.com/FwRpqp2pv2
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 23, 2025
Benitez further laid out what he described as a “trifecta of harm” impacting students and their families as a result of the legislation.
“Although, as stated previously, the State’s desire to protect vulnerable children from harassment and discrimination is laudable, the parental exclusion policies create a trifecta of harm: they harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse,” the judge continued.
“They harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs. And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.”
Benitez further referenced U.S. Supreme Court precedents on parental rights, noting: “common-sense and legally sound description by the United States Supreme Court of parental rights. That, this Court will not do.”
The ruling will likely set up a legal showdown that could prove significant for similar policies implement across the country.
If California decides to appeal, the next step would involve filing a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court, which would transfer the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, which oversees federal appeals from California, would review the district court’s decision for legal errors, potentially affirming, reversing, or remanding the case.
Should the Ninth Circuit rule, either party could then petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.
