A California appellate court has temporarily blocked a federal judge's ruling that would have required teachers to inform parents about their child's gender identity at school, pausing a decision that challenged privacy policies in hundreds of districts.
The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency stay on Jan. 5, 2026, halting U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez's Dec. 22, 2025 order. Benitez's ruling had declared that state policies prohibiting teachers from disclosing a student's gender identity without consent were unconstitutional.
The stay prevents the permanent injunction from taking effect while the state's appeal proceeds, maintaining the status quo in California schools.
The legal battle centers on the case Mirabelli v. Olson, originally filed by Escondido Union School District teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West. They argued that district policies forcing them to conceal a student's gender identity from parents violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious exercise, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Judge Benitez agreed, ruling that parents have a constitutional right to know significant information about their children and that teachers cannot be compelled to "mislead" parents.
Flaws in Legal Reasoning and Precedent
However, the appellate panel, comprised of Judges Mary Murguia, Andrew Hurwitz, and Salvador Mendoza Jr., found significant flaws in Benitez's legal reasoning. In their order, they criticized the ruling as "overly broad," noting it would affect "every parent of California's millions of public school students and every public school employee in the state."
The judges also disputed Benitez's interpretation of state law, pointing out that California Attorney General guidance already permits disclosure "where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student's wellbeing," meaning policies do not categorically forbid communication with parents.
A key point of contention is Benitez's reliance on the 2025 Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of parents seeking to opt their elementary-age children out of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum based on religious objections. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that denying religious opt-outs burdened parents' First Amendment rights.
The appellate panel argued Benitez applied this precedent too expansively, conflating parental rights regarding classroom instruction with administrative policies on student privacy. They suggested that Mahmoud does not automatically extend to school policies unrelated to curriculum opt-outs.
The conflict is further complicated by California's new SAFETY Act (Assembly Bill 1955), which took effect Jan. 1, 2025, ACSA reported. The law explicitly prohibits school districts from enacting policies that force teachers to disclose a student's gender identity without the student's consent.
Judge Benitez had dismissed the state's argument that this new law mooted the case, ruling instead that the SAFETY Act itself might be unconstitutional under his interpretation of parental rights. The appellate court's stay effectively pauses any immediate challenge to this new state law, allowing it to remain operative while the appeal is heard.
Administrative Chaos and Future Implications
State officials welcomed the pause, arguing the original ruling would have caused administrative chaos. Jordan Blue, a spokesperson for Attorney General Rob Bonta, stated the stay "protects vulnerable students and avoids confusion for teachers and schools" while the litigation continues. The state maintains that blanket notification requirements could endanger transgender students who lack supportive home environments.
The plaintiffs, however, vowed to continue their fight. Paul Jonna, an attorney with the LiMandri & Jonna law firm representing the teachers alongside the Thomas More Society, called the stay "an extraordinary step" that "misapplied both the facts and the law." Jonna expressed confidence that the teachers' constitutional rights would ultimately be vindicated, signaling that the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
For now, the stay ensures that privacy policies in districts like Los Angeles Unified remain in force. The case highlights the intensifying national debate over the balance between parental rights and student privacy, with the outcome likely to set a significant precedent for how schools manage gender identity issues nationwide, as per ACLU Southern California.
