A federal appeals court sided with California parents on Friday, finding that a state policy barring school employees from informing parents of their children’s gender transition is unlawful.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the city of Huntington Beach and a group of parents a bid to halt the enforcement of AB 1955, a California policy that bars school officials from telling parents about their children’s gender transitions, such as their use of different names and pronouns, at school. The appeals court panel used the Supreme Court’s March emergency docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta to find that the California policy “likely deprives [the parents] of their constitutional rights.”
With the March order in Mirabelli, the high court ruled 6-3 in favor of blocking a similar policy by invoking its 2025 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which upheld parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBT materials at school and found that not permitting such an option violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
“Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,’” the Mirabelli ruling reads. “The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”
The appeals court panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Daniel Collins, an appointee of President Donald Trump; Kenneth Lee, a Trump appointee; and Lucy Koh, an appointee of former President Joe Biden.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the Ninth Circuit’s Thursday ruling in a post on X Friday, saying the appeals court panel “reaffirmed parents’ right to access their child’s education records.”
“Children don’t belong to the State — they belong to parents,” McMahon said.
In its motion to the appeals court seeking the injunction, the city and a group of parents argued that the Mirabelli case illustrated why the California policy should be blocked while the appeal continues. The coalition also argued that the ruling by the Supreme Court should resolve any standing concerns with their lawsuit challenging the Golden State’s policy.
“The Challenged Provisions achieve the same effect—their stated purpose—by making it impossible to compel those disclosures, whether by policy, agreement with affected parents, or directive by a school administrator,” the city argued to the appeals court. “In doing so, the Challenged Provisions here—like the policies in Mirabelli—usurp parental authority in favor of state actors.”
SUPREME COURT PUNTS ON SCHOOL SECRET GENDER TRANSITION CASES
“Because such closely similar rights and restrictions are at issue, the Supreme Court’s order in Mirabelli provides a roadmap for the proper disposition of this case,” the city’s brief reads.
The Supreme Court is likely to take up a case involving school secret gender transition policies in one of the coming terms, as the issue works its way through federal courts. The high court had two chances to add a case about secret gender transition policies to its argument calendar earlier this year, but punted on both cases.