CA Ruling Shatters School Secrecy: A Monumental Affirmation of Parental Rights
The Ruling at a Glance
On December 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled in Mirabelli v. Olson that California's parental exclusion policies—mandating schools keep a child's rejection of their sex (“gender transition”) secret from parents—are unconstitutional. In a groundbreaking move, he issued a first-of-its-kind class-wide permanent injunction, halting enforcement statewide and protecting all affected parents and teachers.
This isn't just a local decision—it's a direct strike against policies that prioritize ideology over family integrity, affirming parents' 14th Amendment right to direct their child's upbringing.
Deeper Legal Insight—What Happened and Why It Matters
Judge Benitez, in the federal court for the Southern District of California, exposed these policies as a "trifecta of harm":
- To Children: Secrecy delays parental intervention, potentially worsening distress from gender dysphoria or other issues—leaving kids isolated when they need family most.
- To Parents: Violates the long-recognized fundamental right to make decisions on health, well-being, and religious upbringing (citing precedents like Troxel v. Granville).
- To Teachers: Forces compelled speech (or deception), infringing on 1st Amendment rights and creating ethical dilemmas for those with faith-based objections.
The ruling invokes the Supremacy Clause: State privacy laws can't override federal constitutional protections. This echoes CPRC's founding mission—formed to combat exactly this overreach—and validates years of lawsuits against districts hiding transitions from parents.
CPRC's Role and the Bigger Picture
“For years, CPRC has argued in courtrooms and statehouses across the country that these experimental interventions inflict permanent, irreversible harm on children,” said Vernadette Broyles, CPRC President and Chief Counsel.
This ruling ties directly to CPRC cases:
- Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County: Like Mirabelli, it challenges school secrecy on “gender transitions,” affirming parental notification as a constitutional must. We're petitioning the Supreme Court here, and Benitez's decision strengthens our argument.
- Foote v. Ludlow: Focuses on parental rights to opt out of gender indoctrination and “transition” by school officials mirroring the religious freedom angle in Mirabelli. Both show schools can't impose beliefs that conflict with family beliefs.
Radical leftist AGs, superintendents, and policymakers are on notice: Ideology can't trump parents. On appeal to the 9th Circuit? CPRC attorneys predict affirmation—the tea leaves from Supreme Court signals in Mahmoud v. Taylor (upholding parental rights on “gender indoctrination” and religion) suggest reversal by the 9th Circuit would be overturned at SCOTUS. This paves CPRC's path to wins nationwide—no more hiding behind "privacy" to exclude families.
The Path Forward
This is beyond a game-changer: It's judicial affirmation of CPRC's core principle that parents are the ultimate guardians. It could ripple to blue and red states, dismantling secrecy and restoring trust. But appeals loom—your support ensures we defend and expand these victories.
Join the Fight
- Donate Now: Fuel CPRC's lawsuits and advocacy. Donate now.
Our Commitment
CPRC fights so no family faces ideological overreach. This ruling proves: Truth and the Constitution prevail.