A court ruling that let teachers tell parents about a child's 'gender incongruity' is paused

Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times on Jan 6, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

A court order giving California teachers full freedom to tell parents about their child's gender identity at school is on hold after an appellate panel blocked it from going into immediate effect.

Had the three-member panel not acted, the ruling, by a federal district judge, would have required immediate changes to policies at hundreds of school systems up and down the state.

According to data cited in the original ruling, at least 598 of the state's 1,000 school systems have policies restricting what parents can be told about their child's gender expression at school — if the child requests confidentiality.

Los Angeles Unified, the nation's second-largest school system, is among these school districts.

Across the state, "the policies apply to children as young as two and as old as seventeen," U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote in his Dec. 22 ruling. "The policies do not permit teachers to use their own judgment in responding to an inquiring parent. Unless the child consents, the teacher who communicates about a child's gender incongruity faces adverse employment action."

Benitez gave state officials 20 days to show that they had notified school districts that such policies are illegal under the U.S. Constitution.

The appellate court's stay pauses that order while the case continues through the court system.

The latest action does not resolve the case — nor does it reverse the original ruling. But the appellate judges warned that their stay of the original ruling is based on serious potential flaws in the legal analysis of the San Diego-based Benitez.

In his ruling and an accompanying order, Benitez ruled that teachers had free speech and freedom-of-religion rights to tell parents of LGBTQ+ issues affecting their children. Benitez also ruled that parents had a federal constitutional right to such information.

The appellate panel took issue with both Benitez's approach and his reasoning.

The panel questioned the sweep of his Benitez's ruling, which "covers every parent of California's millions of public school students and every public school employee in the state."

The panel also questioned the judge's analysis of the facts: "A preliminary review of the record shows that the State does not categorically forbid disclosure of information about students' gender identities to parents without student consent."

"For example, guidance from the California Attorney General expressly states that schools can 'allow disclosure where a student does not consent where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student's wellbeing,'" the panel wrote in its ruling, which is dated January 5.

The panel also challenged Benitez's reliance on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision. That ruling gave parents a right to opt their child out of LGBTQ-themed instruction based on religious objections.

The appeals court judges noted that Mahmoud dealt with curriculum and wrote that Benitez was likely applying that case too broadly to an area that did not involve instruction.

The plaintiffs said they would challenge the stay, while also defending the ruling of Benitez.

"While the fight continues at the appellate level, we remain confident that our clients' constitutional rights will ultimately be vindicated," said Paul Jonna, of the LiMandri & Jonna law firm, which is partnering with Thomas More Society, a public-interest law firm.

"Parents have a fundamental right, recognized by the Supreme Court for over a century, to direct their children's upbringing," Jonna said. "Teachers have a constitutional right to communicate honestly with parents without being forced to deceive them in violation of their faith. California cannot override these rights, and we are prepared to take this case as far as necessary — including all the way up to the Supreme Court."

State officials had argued that the ruling would cause administrative chaos across California and also would threaten the privacy rights and living situations of LGBTQ+ students who do not have supportive families.

The case involves issues that are either not yet settled under federal law or that are evolving. The philosophical leanings of the judges hearing the case are likely to play a significant role, legal experts said.

Benitez was appointed to the federal bench by Republican President George W. Bush.

The three-judge appellate panel consisted of Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia, Andrew D. Hurwitz and Salvador Mendoza, Jr.. Murguia and Hurwitz were appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama. Mendoza was appointed by President Joe Biden, also a Democrat.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently dominated by social conservatives.

_____