❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal judge blocked California school employees from misleading parents about their child’s gender presentation at school.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, California state officials, and school employees.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Monday, Southern District of California.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.” – Judge Roger Benitez
🎯IMPACT: The ruling upholds parental rights over state-imposed policies on gender identity in schools.
California school employees will no longer be allowed to hide the gender presentation of a student from their parents or legal guardian, according to a ruling issued by a federal District Court judge in the state. U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez ruled that parents have a constitutional right to be informed of such matters, and California state and local officials cannot enforce laws or guidance that require employees to deceive parents.
According to Judge Benitez’s ruling, California educators and state officials are “enjoined from implementing or enforcing: (1) the Privacy Provision of the California Constitution, Cal. Const. art. I, § 1; (2) any other provision of California law, including equal protection provisions such as Cal. Educ. Code §§ 200, 220, Cal. Gov. Code § 11135; or (3) any regulations or guidance, such as the 2016 “Legal Advisory regarding application of California’s antidiscrimination statutes to transgender youth in schools” and accompanying FAQ page, or Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §§4900-4965, or the newly produced PRISM cultural competency training…”
Further, the state’s PRISM training materials must henceforth contain the following statement to educators: “Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.”
In his 52-page opinion, Judge Benitez criticized California’s policies, stating that they “purposefully interfere” with parents’ access to meaningful information about their children. He noted, “Preventing student bullying and harassment in school is a laudable goal. The problem is that the parent exclusion policies seem to presume that it is the parents that will be the harassers from whom students need to be protected.”
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
.jpg){kind=link}
