California judge shuts down state’s school gender secrecy policy. What does ruling mean for Anchorage?

BY SUZANNE DOWNING

A federal judge has blocked California’s so-called “gender secrecy” policies in public schools, ruling that they violate the constitutional rights of parents and teachers and ordering a class-wide injunction that applies statewide.

The case, Mirabelli v. Olson, was brought by teachers and parents with the backing of the Thomas More Society and challenged policies that allowed students to socially transition to a different gender at school while requiring teachers and staff to conceal that information from parents unless the child gave permission. US District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California ruled just before Christmas that these policies were unconstitutional and could no longer be enforced.

The lawsuit was initiated by two veteran teachers who objected to being required to use new names and pronouns for students while withholding that information from parents.

The court found that California education officials had created a regime that compelled deception, placed teachers in conflict with their professional and moral duties, and excluded parents from decisions involving their own children. As the case developed, additional families joined, including parents who said they learned only after a crisis that their child had been socially transitioned at school without their knowledge. The judge ultimately certified the case as a class action, extending relief to parents and teachers across the state.

The ruling not only blocks enforcement of the policies but also orders California to affirmatively inform educators, through mandatory training, that parents have a federal constitutional right to be notified when a student expresses gender incongruence, and that teachers have a corresponding right to tell parents the truth. Those rights, the court stated, override any conflicting state or local rules.

This decision has implications beyond California, including in Alaska, where similar debates are unfolding. In Anchorage, the school district does not have a formally adopted school board policy requiring parental exclusion in matters of gender identity. However, it does operate under administrative guidance and internal practices that have, in effect, encouraged staff to handle student gender issues without automatically involving parents.

Read Anchorage School District guidance here.

That distinction matters legally. In California, the court was able to point directly to written statewide and district-level policies that mandated secrecy and compelled teacher compliance. In Anchorage, the lack of a formally board-adopted policy has allowed district officials to argue that no binding rule exists, even as guidance documents and training materials shape day-to-day behavior in schools.

Meanwhile, for at least California, whether imposed by statute, regulation, or administrative directive, policies that deliberately cut parents out of significant decisions about their children’s lives are now on shakier legal ground. Judge Benitez’s order makes clear that states and school systems cannot evade constitutional limits by shifting controversial requirements into training manuals or “guidance” memos while avoiding formal votes.

For Alaska parents watching developments in Anchorage and elsewhere, the California case is worth studying.Courts are increasingly willing to examine not just what school districts say they do, but what they actually require teachers to do in practice. The ruling reinforces a long-standing principle: public schools exist to educate children, not to override parents, and transparency with families is not optional when fundamental rights are at stake.

Linda Boyle: Federal report finds no evidence supporting gender transitions for minors, warns of significant harm