Schools Hiding Gender Identity From Parents: The Battle Continues

The Virginia Christian Alliance continues our Constitutional Showdown series by Jeff Bayard. Framed by a Christian worldview and constitutional originalism, we expose how modern courts twist the Framers’ original intent while equipping believers for faithful citizenship. Our Third Way rejects partisan extremes — applying biblical truth and originalist analysis to pursue justice with conviction and intellectual honesty.

California mandates teachers conceal students’ gender transitions from parents—but a federal judge says this violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Ninth Circuit is now the battleground, and the constitutional questions it raises affect school districts across America.

Parents Lost Round One — But the Battle Is Far From Over

The Supreme Court has already weighed in — and parents lost round one. In January 2026, the Court declined an emergency request to reinstate a landmark federal ruling that would have required California schools to notify parents when children socially transition. But the battle is far from over. The underlying case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, continues through the Ninth Circuit, and the constitutional questions it raises affect school districts across America — including yours.

In Mirabelli v. Bonta, teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West sued after being forced to use students’ preferred names and pronouns while keeping that information secret from parents. Parents later joined the lawsuit—including John and Jane Poe, who discovered their daughter had been living as a boy at school for an extended period. According to plaintiffs’ court filings, they learned of this only in connection with a serious suicidal crisis. They transferred their daughter to a new school and asked officials to keep them informed about any gender-related issues. Officials pointed to state-driven policies limiting disclosure and refused.

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled December 22, 2025, that California’s “parental exclusion policies” violate both the First Amendment rights of teachers and the Fourteenth Amendment rights of parents. He issued a class-wide permanent injunction forbidding California’s top education officials from enforcing state-driven policies that bar teachers from informing parents about a child’s gender transition at school.

California appealed. The Ninth Circuit entered an administrative stay on December 29, 2025, and converted it into a full stay pending appeal on January 5, 2026. In early January, the plaintiffs filed an emergency application (No. 25A810) asking Justice Elena Kagan—the Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit—to vacate the stay and reinstate Judge Benitez’s injunction. The Supreme Court denied the application on January 27, 2026, leaving California’s policies in effect while the Ninth Circuit appeal (No. 25-8056) continues.

California’s AB 1955 (the “SAFETY Act”) prohibits school districts from requiring teachers to notify parents when children socially transition at school. Similar policies exist in districts across America. This case will ultimately determine whether parents have a constitutional right to know what’s happening with their children—or whether schools can create what Judge Benitez called a “zone of secrecy” between parents and kids.

Understanding the First and Fourteenth Amendments: What Every American Should Know

The Text

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Historical Context

The First Amendment (1791) was born from religious persecution. Many colonists fled Europe because governments forced conformity to official churches. The Founders wanted government completely out of religion—unable to establish an official church or prohibit religious practice.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (1868) was added after the Civil War to protect freed slaves. The Supreme Court has since interpreted “liberty” to include fundamental rights so deeply rooted in American tradition that government cannot violate them without due process.

What the Framers Said

On Religious Freedom:

James Madison: “The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.”

Thomas Jefferson: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

On Parental Rights:

The Supreme Court has long recognized parental authority as fundamental. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

In Troxel v. Granville (2000): “The liberty interest at issue in this case—the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”

How These Amendments Protect Americans Today

The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause protects:

Your right to practice religion without government interference
The right to raise children according to your religious beliefs
Protection from being forced to violate your religious conscience
The right to express religious views, even when they conflict with government policy

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects:

Fundamental rights so deeply rooted in tradition that government must justify any interference
Parents’ authority over their children’s medical care, education, and moral upbringing
The parent-child relationship from government intrusion without due process
Your right to receive accurate information from government schools about your child

The Interpretive Questions

Constitutional scholars disagree about how these amendments apply to school gender identity policies.

Some argue the Free Exercise Clause protects teachers who believe affirming gender transitions contradicts their religious convictions—that (1) God created humans male and female, (2) changing pronouns participates in denying reality, and (3) parents have authority over children’s psychological development that schools cannot usurp.

Others argue schools can set professional requirements for teachers that conflict with personal beliefs, just as hospitals can require doctors to provide certain medical care despite religious objections.

Some argue parental authority is so fundamental that government schools cannot make decisions about a child’s psychological welfare—including social gender transition—without parental knowledge. They note schools must notify parents about head lice and field trips; “social transition” is a far more significant intervention.

Others argue students have independent privacy rights that can, in limited circumstances, override parental authority—and that revealing gender identity to potentially hostile parents creates genuine safety risks.

What This Case Asks

Mirabelli v. Bonta asks: Do California policies that require or permit schools to conceal student gender identity from parents violate (1) teachers’ First Amendment free exercise rights, and (2) parents’ Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to direct their children’s upbringing?

The Case Before the Court

Key Facts: Teachers Mirabelli and West are devout Christians who were required to use students’ preferred pronouns while concealing this from parents. John and Jane Poe, after discovering their daughter’s unreported gender transition in connection with a serious suicidal crisis, asked their daughter’s new school to keep them informed. Officials declined, citing state-driven policies.

Procedural History: In July 2024, Governor Newsom signed AB 1955, prohibiting school districts from requiring parental notification when students request different names or pronouns. Judge Roger T. Benitez (a George W. Bush appointee) ruled December 22, 2025, that this violates the Constitution, issuing a class-wide permanent injunction on plaintiffs’ free-exercise and substantive due-process claims. California appealed (Ninth Circuit No. 25-8056). The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction. The Supreme Court denied an emergency request to reinstate it on January 27, 2026.

Please Support the Virginia Christian Alliance Website and Community Center

We would appreciate your donation.

Current Status: Judge Benitez’s permanent injunction exists but is currently stayed. California’s parental exclusion policies remain in effect while the Ninth Circuit appeal proceeds. This is an ongoing legal battle — not a closed case.

The Teachers’ and Parents’ Constitutional Argument

First, teachers’ First Amendment rights are violated. Mirabelli and West believe God created humans male and female (Genesis 1:27), that this biological reality cannot be changed, and that referring to boys as girls constitutes a lie contradicting their faith. Moreover, they believe parents—not school officials—have God-given authority over children’s moral development.

California’s policy forced them to choose: Violate your religious beliefs by lying to parents, or lose your job. In Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that when mandatory school curriculum substantially burdens parents’ religious exercise, the Free Exercise Clause requires accommodation unless the policy survives strict scrutiny. While Mahmoud specifically addressed curricular opt-outs, its strict scrutiny standard directly informs this case. California cannot meet strict scrutiny because it has no compelling interest in forcing teachers to deceive parents.

Second, parents’ Fourteenth Amendment rights are violated. Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in directing their children’s upbringing. “Social transition”—using different names and pronouns—is not neutral accommodation. In a 2023 expert affidavit, psychiatrist Dr. Stephen B. Levine—who previously participated in and wrote within the gender-identity treatment field—warned that “social transition of young children is a powerful psychotherapeutic intervention that radically changes outcomes, almost eliminating desistance.”

If my child breaks an arm, the school must notify me. If my child wants to go on a field trip, I must give permission. But if my child undergoes a significant psychological intervention affecting the rest of their life, the school can hide it? This violates parents’ due process right to accurate information from government institutions.

Romans 13:1-4 establishes that God ordained civil government with limited authority. Government schools exist to educate children—not to make major decisions about psychological welfare while hiding those decisions from parents. When government exceeds its ordained authority by usurping parental authority, it violates both constitutional law and God’s design.

The State’s Constitutional Argument

First, teachers are government employees performing official duties. When teachers accepted public school positions, they agreed to implement district policies. The Free Exercise Clause protects private religious practice but doesn’t grant public employees a constitutional right to refuse job duties. Moreover, using a student’s chosen name and pronouns is courteous communication, not a religious ritual.

Second, students have independent constitutional privacy rights. The Supreme Court has recognized that minors possess certain rights separate from their parents. Gender identity is deeply personal information. Forcing disclosure violates students’ constitutional privacy interests.

Third, mandatory notification creates genuine safety risks. The Trevor Project’s 2022 National Survey found that 45% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year. California presented evidence that family rejection and lack of support are major risk factors. California’s approach allows individualized assessment rather than mandatory disclosure that may endanger vulnerable students.

Fourth, Mahmoud v. Taylor doesn’t directly apply. That case involved mandatory curriculum where schools actively taught content contradicting parents’ religious beliefs and denied opt-outs. Here, schools accommodate student identity without forcing teachers to teach a pro-transgender curriculum. Some lower courts have read Mahmoud narrowly as a curriculum opt-out decision rather than a broad parental-rights ruling.

Fifth, the First Circuit’s Foote v. Ludlow School Committee (2025) supports the State’s position. The First Circuit held that using a student’s chosen name and pronouns “is not a form of medical treatment” and does not, by itself, violate parents’ constitutional rights. Parents remained free to discuss these issues with their children and make their own medical decisions.

Exodus 22:21 commands: “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him.” Transgender youth experiencing family rejection are among society’s most vulnerable. Forcing disclosure to potentially hostile parents may inflict real harm.

The Original Intent Dilemma

Evidence supporting strong parental authority:

Founders universally believed parents possessed primary authority over children
Colonial law gave parents extensive authority with limited government interference
Early schools operated in loco parentis—as agents carrying out parental wishes
Historical practice: Schools always notified parents of significant issues

Evidence supporting student privacy and limits on government employee conscience claims:

Founders believed in limited government power, including limiting government employees’ ability to impose personal views through official actions
Free Exercise protects private worship, not necessarily government employees’ right to refuse job duties
Founding-era law recognized minors gained increasing autonomy as they matured

Deuteronomy 19:15: “Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be established.” We have conflicting evidence. Honest originalism requires humility. The Founders never contemplated public schools hiding gender transitions from parents. We must reason carefully from foundational principles while acknowledging the limits of our knowledge.

The Third Way: Rights, Responsibilities, and Wisdom

Extreme #1: Pure parental notification with zero exceptions. This treats parental authority as absolute and gives no weight to genuine abuse concerns. It ignores biblical wisdom about protecting the vulnerable. Some parents actively harm their children.

Extreme #2: Pure student privacy with categorical secrecy. This treats children as fully autonomous and parents as threats. It contradicts both Scripture and the Constitution. Ephesians 6:4 commands fathers to “bring up [children] in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” Proverbs 29:15 warns: “A child left to himself brings shame to his mother.”

The Third Way balances competing goods:

Parental authority is presumptive and primary. Parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing. Default: parents should be notified of significant issues.
Genuine abuse concerns require individualized assessment. When credible evidence suggests notification would lead to serious abuse, schools can involve child protective services. This requires: (1) evidence of specific risk, not general assumptions, (2) formal process with accountability, (3) trained professionals, not just teacher judgment.
Teachers’ religious conscience deserves accommodation when possible. Schools should not force teachers to systematically deceive parents or violate core religious convictions unless absolutely necessary.
“Social transition” is not neutral—it’s significant psychological intervention. Such interventions require parental knowledge and consent except in extraordinary circumstances.
Process matters as much as substance. If California believes parental notification endangers children, the proper remedy is legislation creating formal procedures for individualized determinations—not categorical policies hiding information from all parents. 2 Timothy 2:5: “An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

What’s at Stake

First, the scope of parental authority. Does the Constitution protect parents’ right to know what’s happening with their children? Or can schools make significant decisions about children’s psychological welfare without parental knowledge? This affects not just gender identity but mental health counseling, medication, and countless other issues.

Acts 17:26 declares that God “determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place”—establishing that God created the family with defined boundaries and authority.

Second, religious freedom for government employees. Can public school teachers maintain religious conscience while performing their jobs? This question extends beyond teachers to nurses, social workers, and all government employees whose work touches religious or moral questions.

Third, children’s constitutional status. Do minors possess independent constitutional rights that override parental authority? At what age? Under what circumstances? The Supreme Court has never clearly defined this relationship.

What Christians Must Do

First, pray for the justices and the courts. 1 Timothy 2:1-2 commands prayers “for kings and all who are in high positions.” Pray that the Ninth Circuit would weigh these constitutional questions carefully, that any future Supreme Court review would protect both parental authority and children’s safety, and that God would grant wisdom to all involved.

Second, investigate your own school district immediately. Don’t assume this only happens in California. Request your district’s policy on gender identity and parental notification. Attend school board meetings. Ask directly: “Will you notify parents if a child socially transitions?”

This connects to our previous article on Mahmoud v. Taylor, where parents won the right to opt children out of LGBTQ curriculum.

Third, understand the difference between protecting vulnerable children and usurping parental authority. Some children genuinely face abuse. This does not justify categorical policies hiding information from ALL parents. The solution is individualized assessment, not blanket secrecy.

Proverbs 31:8-9: “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute.” We must defend both children in genuinely abusive situations AND parents whose authority is being usurped.

Fourth, speak truth about gender identity with compassion. God created humans male and female (Genesis 1:27). Gender dysphoria causes genuine distress—but the solution is not pretending biology doesn’t exist. People experiencing gender dysphoria are image-bearers of God deserving compassion, not contempt.

Ephesians 4:15: “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”

Fifth, support teachers like Mirabelli and West. These women risked their careers to stand for religious liberty and parental rights. Organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom and Thomas More Society defend religious liberty in these cases. Support them financially and prayerfully.

Sixth, engage the ongoing battle at every level. The Supreme Court’s denial of the emergency request is not the end. The Ninth Circuit appeal continues. State legislatures across America are debating parental notification bills right now. Local school boards adopt and rescind these policies regularly.

If you live in a state without parental notification protections: contact your state legislators. If your school board has adopted a parental exclusion policy: show up. Remember that our ultimate citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20)—but while we are here, we are called to pursue justice.

Conclusion: Who Has Authority Over Children?

The California parental notification case presents a fundamental question: Who has authority over children—parents or the state?

For over a century, the Supreme Court has recognized that parents possess fundamental rights to direct their children’s upbringing. This authority pre-dates the Constitution. It flows from God’s design for the family.

California’s policies invert this order. They empower schools to make significant decisions about children’s psychological welfare while hiding those decisions from parents. They force teachers to deceive parents or lose their jobs. The Ninth Circuit’s stay and the Supreme Court’s denial of emergency relief means these policies remain in effect—for now.

What we know for certain:

Parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing. This includes the right to know what’s happening with their children at school.

Teachers have First Amendment rights to religious conscience. Forcing them to systematically deceive parents or violate core convictions exceeds government’s legitimate authority.

“Social transition” is not neutral accommodation—it is significant psychological intervention. Such interventions require parental knowledge except in extraordinary circumstances.

Process matters. If California believes some children need protection from parents, the remedy is formal procedures for individualized determinations—not categorical policies hiding information from all parents.

God is sovereign over nations, courts, and families. Deuteronomy 6:6-7 commands parents: “These words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children.”

Parents cannot teach diligently if schools systematically hide significant information. Government schools cannot fulfill their God-ordained function if they treat parents as adversaries rather than partners.

The Ninth Circuit will hear this case. The Supreme Court may well take it up again. Whatever courts rule, our ultimate hope rests not in earthly judges but in the One who judges righteously.

Daniel 2:21 reminds us: “He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.”

God gave parents authority over children. No court ruling can override that divine design—but courts can either honor it or violate it.

Let us pray they choose wisely.