School Policies Keeping Secrets from Parents Ruled Unconstitutional

Just before Christmas, attorneys for the Thomas More Society achieved a huge win for Parent Empowerment in Mirabelli, et al. v. Olson, et al., ending California’s gender secrecy policies and restoring transparency and parental involvement in public education.

The specific regulation at issue, Administrative Regulation 5145.3 (AR 5145.3), was promulgated by the California Department of Education and has been widely adopted in most school districts in California, including Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD).

As we have covered here previously, AR 5145.3 required schools to socially transition K-12th grade students who claim a transgender identity and keep it all secret from parents. First, school staff was required to accept the student’s assertion of gender identity and treat the student according to the asserted identity. Second, district personnel were required to address the student by her preferred name and pronouns. Third, the district “shall only disclose” a student’s gender identity with the student’s prior written consent.

On December 22, 2025, a U.S. District Court judge in San Diego ruled that these policies violate the U.S. Constitution in four distinct ways. First, parents have a constitutional right to obtain this information from schools under both the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clauses. Second, public school teachers have a right to communicate this information to parents under the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion and free speech clauses.

As a result of the Court’s order, California school are permanently enjoined from enforcing these policies.

As many of you here know, I have long opposed these policies and have publicly supported like-minded school board candidates.

However, even if you have not challenged the merits of these secrecy policies in the public square, the Court’s 52-page ruling is worth your time. The Court detailed the evidence submitted on the issue and grappled with the State of California’s best arguments. The Court’s reasoning is instructive, and I have highlighted my takeaways:

In the order, the Court recognized that socially transitioning kids—that is, referring to them by a different name and gender at school—is a form of medical treatment, citing Doe v. Horne (9th Cir. 2024) 115 F.4th 1083, fn. 13. Accordingly, AR 5145.3 required schools to provide medial treatment to students without parental knowledge or consent. This is not only incongruent with how schools treat other medical issues; it harms parents and students.

(Order, pp. 20-21.)

Proponents of the gender secrecy policies usually argue that parental knowledge of social transitioning at school somehow harms kids. The Court’s order demolishes that argument.

As the Court put it:

(Order, pp. 28-29.) I love this. There was simply no evidence presented to support a presumption that parental knowledge will harm kids. Further, K-12th grade-aged children do not have the financial or logistical wherewithal to seek and obtain the necessary medical and mental health treatment without their parents or guardians involved. As the Court pointed out, most clinicians will not treat a child without parental consent (and payment).

As one expert put it, clinicians would never treat a child for a condition like lymphoma without telling parents. (Order, p. 23.) Parents need to know what is ailing their children in order to provide them the help they need.

Proponents of the secrecy policies claim that an individual’s gender identity is “innate.” Accordingly, individuals do not choose their gender identities; these identities are immutable characteristics such as skin color, height, etc.

If there was ever a case in which gender secrecy proponents would attempt to prove the innateness of gender identity, this would have been it. However, as the Court found, the proponents failed to do so:

(Order, p. 29.)

In this case, it appears California made a material misrepresentation to the Court. Apparently sensing defeat, the Attorney General argued that this case was moot because California took down an FAQ page on gender identity. However, the State refused to enter into a legally binding agreement on this issue. And, the plaintiffs presented evidence that California was still enforcing these secrecy policies.

(Order, p. 8.) As the Thomas More Society put it:

The case also revealed the extreme lengths California education officials went to evade responsibility. They misled the court by claiming these policies were no longer enforced, only to be caught red-handed enforcing them in mandatory teacher training a week before the summary judgment hearing on November 17.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld parents’ right to opt-out of Gender Ideology curriculum and instruction on religious grounds in the landmark Mahmoud v. Taylor decision. At the time, we predicted that this decision would pave the way to dismantling policies like NMUSD’s AR 5145.3 that require schools to socially transition kids without parental knowledge or consent. We were right!

In holding that teachers have a right to inform parents and parents have a right to know under the Free Exercise clause, the Court cited Mahmoud v. Taylor extensively. As we surmised, if mere instruction on Gender Ideology would burden the free exercise of religion, secret social transitions at school certainly would! Clearly, we are just beginning to see the ramifications of Mahmoud v. Taylor play out in California.

Although this is a very positive result for Parent Empowerment, the fight is far from over.

First, we need to tell our local school boards to take harmful and unconstitutional policies like AR 5145.3 off the books. Additionally, we should hold school board representatives who supported such policies accountable. NMUSD’s school board can be reached here: nmusdboardofeducation@nmusd.us

Next, California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Office has already signaled that they plan to appeal this ruling. It is therefore possible that this order may be put on pause pending such an appeal or that it may be partially or completely overturned. The Plaintiffs need our continued support!

Finally, this ruling seriously undermines AB 1955, recent CA legislation intended to prohibit school boards from create parental notice policies. If parents have a constitutional right to know if their child is having issues with his gender, and teachers have a right to tell, these rights are meaningless if schools can hide behind AB 1955. To the extent this misguided law infringes on the rights outlined in this order, it too is unconstitutional.