A short excerpt from the Ninth Circuit's order yesterday in Mirabelli v. Bonta (Chief Judge Mary Murguia, joined by Judges Andrew Hurwitz and Salvador Mendoza):
Plaintiff-Appellees are four parents and four Escondido Union School District ("EUSD") teachers who challenge a host of California state laws that Plaintiffs refer to as "the State's Parental Exclusion Policies." According to Plaintiffs, these challenged laws are described in the California Department of Education's 2016 "Legal Advisory regarding application of California's antidiscrimination statutes to transgender youth in schools" and its accompanying FAQs. The challenged policies allegedly violate teachers' and parents' constitutional rights by requiring teachers to hide a student's gender nonconformity and social transition, including from the student's parents, unless the student consents to disclosure of that information….
The district court certified the class of all California public school employees and parents of children attending public school who object to the challenged state laws under Rule 23(b)(2). On December 22, 2025, the district court granted permanent injunctive relief to all its members. The district court found that various California laws violate parents' substantive due process and free exercise rights to be informed "after a student says or dresses in a way that suggests a non-conforming gender identity." The district court also concluded that public school employees have free speech and free exercise rights to provide information about a student's gender expression to the student's parents.
Based on these conclusions, the court entered an injunction that bars State Appellants from "implementing or enforcing" "the Privacy Provision of the California Constitution … [and] any other provision of California law" that would "permit or require any employee in the California state-wide education system [to] mislead[] [a] parent or guardian … about their child's gender presentation at school." The injunction prohibits State Appellants from "permit[ting] or requir[ing] any employee in the California state-wide education system to use a name or pronoun to refer to [a] child that [does] not match the child's legal name and natal pronouns, where a child's parent or legal guardian has communicated their objection to such use." The injunction directs the State to include a notice in educator training materials that: "Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence." …
After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that the State Appellants have shown that "there is a substantial case for [a stay] on the merits." …
