What's more important: a parent's right to know what's going on in the lives of their minor children, or a child's right to embrace who they feel they are without fear of recrimination? Supporters on either side will likely have difficulty fathoming opposing arguments.
This is an ongoing public policy debate in California regarding transgender children. Putting that discussion aside for a moment, what does the law say? A closely watched case in California may help clarify the law surrounding student privacy and parental rights.
Assembly Bill 1955
California passed AB1955 in 2024. The law offers protections for children experiencing gender dysphoria or who identify as LGBTQ+. It includes a ban on policies that mandate the forced outing of a pupil by school employees. AB1955 replaced the policy that faced a lawsuit from two middle school teachers who claimed violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The State Board of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction had filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the replacement of the original guidelines made the lawsuit moot. On April 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez denied the request, keeping the defendants as part of the case. We'll explain.
Weighing Rights
Before California passed AB1955, the California State Board of Education's stance on the forced outing of LGTBQ+ students or pupils experiencing gender dysmorphia by teachers or other school officials was contained under the "Questions about the School Success and Opportunity Act" header on a page of the Department of Education's website.
That page, which was replaced in January 2025 on the site with a page explaining AB1955, included a focus on a policy that mandated teachers not tell the parents of transgender and gender-nonconforming kids that their children were displaying signs of gender dysphoria.
Claiming this was a violation of their free speech rights and religious freedoms, two middle school teachers from Escondido sued the State Board of Education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and several other entities. They also alleged the policy interfered with parents' due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to raise their children as they see fit.
With the removal of the webpage containing the information that the plaintiffs took legal action against, the State Board of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction argued that the specific policy named by the lawsuit was no longer in effect. This, they reasoned, made their suit moot.
In addition, they pointed out that the Department of Education website page on AB1955 specifically notes that it's a replacement for the Questions about the School Success and Opportunity Act. It also states that it's considered a non-binding guideline and that local education agencies should comply with regulations and statutes.
Identifying the terms of AB1955 as guidelines instead of mandatory and enforceable Department of Education rules stood as the basis for their argument for dismissal — it was a state issue, not a Board of Education or Superintendent matter.
In denying the motion, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez called out the state entities for not making a clearer distinction on whether a teacher could forcibly out one of their students. Only a complete agreement that teachers could out their students would moot the lawsuit.
Benitez went on to call the original FAQ page an "actual chilling effect" on the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.
The Case Moves On
The lawsuit is not over. At issue is whether the law infringes on the rights of parents and teachers to act as they believe is in the best interests of their students.
The text of AB1955 cites studies that show that pupils who know they're LGTBQ+ or are still learning about their possible gender dysmorphia have better results going forward when they receive support and love. Some students can't be sure about their family's response or are certain they'd meet heated or potentially dangerous opposition at home. AB1955 states that having school be a safe refuge where they can learn about themselves without fear of a forced outing provides a helpful and nurturing environment.
Those opposed to AB1955 agree with the plaintiff's claims that parents have the constitutional right to raise their children according to their own beliefs and values without schools hiding information from them.
Where AB1955 falls on the spectrum between the plaintiffs' personal and religious freedoms and students' right to privacy is a matter that will be decided in federal court.
Related Resources
- Parental Rights and Legal Liability (FindLaw's Family Law)
- Transgender Student Rights: The Basics (FindLaw's Discrimination at School Law)
- Discrimination Against LGBTQ+ Students (FindLaw's LGBTQ+ Law)
