A legal battle with significant implications for schools in California — and perhaps across America — is nearing its conclusion in a federal courtroom, where a judge is considering a challenge to a statewide policy that prohibits staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity to their parents without the student’s consent.

The case, brought by two female teachers, questions the balance between student privacy, parental rights, and the role of educators, and comes at a time when school districts across the country are grappling with the issue. The lawsuit has been granted class-action status, meaning its outcome could affect all public school employees and parents in California who object to similar gender identity policies, and could well reverberate across the nation.

“Parents have a fundamental right, recognized by the Supreme Court for over a century, to direct their children’s educational and moral upbringing,” says the Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society, Peter Breen, who is representing the plaintiffs. “California’s Department of Education and school districts cannot override that right by keeping parents in the dark about major issues and developments in their child’s life. Especially on something as sensitive and serious as gender-related confusion. Parents should never be treated as strangers in their own children’s lives.”

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez is presiding over the case, filed by Escondido Unified School District teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West. The teachers argue that the district’s policy infringes upon their First and 14th Amendment rights.

During a contentious, day-long hearing this week, Judge Benitez, an appointee of President George W. Bush, expressed skepticism about the state’s defense of the policy, according to a report from the Courthouse News Service.

He suggested that such rules undermine the fundamental rights of parents to guide their children’s upbringing and well-being.

“What this is really about is the fact that you are depriving the parents of the opportunity to decide what’s going to happen to those kids who are experiencing gender incongruity,” Judge Benitez said in the courtroom. 

He emphasized that the core issue was parental authority, regardless of whether the topic is medical, psychological, or social.

“The parents are being denied the ability to seek whether it’s a medical, psychological, or social treatment of their children if their children are showing the slightest indication that they have a gender incongruity issue,” Judge Benitez said.

The judge further noted that a student’s privacy does not supersede a parent’s constitutional right to the custody and control of their child. “We’re having this wonderful discussion, but guess what? In the end, the people who are going to suffer the most as a result of the gender incongruity are going to be the children and the parents,” he said.

A formal ruling from Judge Benitez is expected in the coming weeks, but that likely won’t end the matter.

“We expect that California will appeal any ruling in our favor to the Ninth Circuit and potentially even the U.S. Supreme Court,” a spokeswoman for the Thomas More Society, Katie Clancy, tells the Sun. “This case could very well eventually set strong national precedent as the legal analysis is not unique to California.”

“These policies have unfortunately infected schools across the U.S,” she added. “The legal analysis here, based on the US Constitution, could help dismantle these policies nationwide.”

Adding another layer to the proceedings, the court is also considering sanctions against state officials for allegedly misleading the court. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, represented by the Thomas More Society, presented evidence claiming the California Department of Education continued to promote the disputed policies secretly after being ordered to stop.

Paul Jonna, an attorney for the teachers, asserted that the state used password-protected teacher training materials to circulate “parental exclusion policies” after removing similar guidance from its public website.

“We now have irrefutable evidence that the [California Department of Education] covertly moved these unconstitutional gender secrecy directives inside a password-protected training hidden away from public view, and distributed them to school districts statewide,” Ms. Jonna told the Daily Wire. “The State claimed in court that it had rescinded the gender secrecy directives we are challenging. But we now have evidence of a coordinated, statewide campaign to enforce Parental Exclusion Policies.”

Ms. Jonna pointed out that these training materials direct educators to guidelines from LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations like the ACLU and Our Family Coalition, which advise against informing parents about a student’s gender identity without their permission.

The California Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment.

After the hearing, plaintiff Elizabeth Mirabelli expressed optimism. “We are going to win,” she said, according to Courthouse News. “We 100 percent support our LGBTQ students, but we don’t do it by cutting out their family. That is not the right way. That just assumes the worst-case scenario, and that’s too rushed, it’s too broad, and it’s illegal.”