California Faces Federal Lawsuit Over Prohibition on Gender Change Notifications in Schools
California parents and a school district have launched a combined federal lawsuit against the state over its new policy prohibiting public schools from notifying parents of children’s gender change requests.
In response to the law, entrepreneur Elon Musk declared that X, formerly known as Twitter, and SpaceX would relocate its headquarters from California to Texas shortly before the lawsuit was filed.
The Liberty Justice Center filed the case on behalf of Chino Valley Unified School District and many parents, alleging that AB 1955, the state’s new statute, violates the US Constitution and federal records law.
Chino Valley was the first California school district, among many others, to implement a gender change notification policy, which requires parents to be notified within three days if a student engages in violence, discusses suicide, or requests to identify with or participate in programs or use school facilities for a gender other than what is on their birth certificate or official records.
Chino’s policy was partially upheld and partially blocked by a preliminary injunction issued by a state court in response to a lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, which determined that the district could continue to require notification when a child requests to change any information in the student’s official or unofficial records.
The court decided that the provisions demanding to be treated as the other gender or to access the other gender’s sex-segregated programs, activities, or facilities would be put on hold until the whole trial. Chino changed its policy in March to reflect the injunction, leaving the matter in limbo as both parties seek summary judgment on the case’s mootness under the new policy.
Two months later, Tony Thurmond, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, sponsored and submitted AB 1955, which easily passed through the legislature and was signed into law by the governor to eliminate “forced outings.”
LJC’s complaint argues that notification protocols are necessary and that the state restriction is unconstitutional.
“Transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and abuse, and that transgender youth experience an abnormally high number of suicidal thoughts and make an abnormally high number of suicide attempts” , the LJC reported. “PK-12 minor students, most of whom are too young to drive, vote, or provide medical consent for themselves, are also too young to make life-altering decisions about their expressed gender identity without their parents’ knowledge.”
LJC presents a first claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause, stating that the state is denying parents the right “to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” The LCJ claims secondary relief from First Amendment concerns that the ban violates religious parents’ beliefs, and a third claim of relief from the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which states that schools that “receive federal funds must guarantee parent access to student education records.”
Because AB 1955 did not include an urgency provision, it will not go into effect until January 1, implying that the federal district court may take many months to hear the case.
