Legal
Update on parental notification rights with respect to transgender students
Chino Valley USD decision and AB 1955
Over the past year, the rights of parents and transgender or gender non-conforming students have been widely covered in the media and as frequent topics in the courtroom and California’s Legislature. Recent developments to be aware of include the passage of Assembly Bill 1955 and a recent superior court decision in California v. Chino Valley Unified School District.
Decision in California v. Chino Valley USD
As previously described on the CSBA blog (blog.csba.org/regino-mirabelli-recap), in August of 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in superior court challenging a Chino Valley USD board policy requiring many certificated employees and administrators to notify parent(s) in various scenarios, including when a student:

  1. Requests to be identified or treated as a gender other than the student’s biological sex, including use of a different name or pronouns.
  2. Accesses sex-segregated school programs and activities or uses school facilities that do not align with the student’s biological sex, such as sports teams and restrooms.
  3. Requests to change any information in the student’s official or unofficial records.

The Attorney General challenged these three provisions of the policy and argued that these notification requirements violate the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution, Education Code section 200 and Government Code section 11135. The Attorney General also argued that the third notification requirement violates the privacy rights of adult and minor students.

On Oct. 19, 2023, the court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the district, concluding that the Attorney General was likely to prevail in its lawsuit. In response, the district’s board approved new policies, which it argued made the lawsuit moot because the challenged policy was no longer in effect.

On Sept. 9, 2024, the court issued a permanent injunction against the district. In doing so, the court first rejected the district’s mootness argument due to the public interest in obtaining a decision on the important issues raised by both parties. The court’s considerations included various factors such as the number of cases pending on the issue and the existence of parties who intervened in the lawsuit and amicus briefs filed.

cropped picture of person's hands opening envelope and pulling out a piece of paper
The court then considered the equal protection arguments in relation to notifications required when a student requests to be identified or treated as a gender other than their biological sex and to access sex-segregated programs and activities or use school facilities that do not align with their biological sex. The court stated that the classification of students based on transgender status (which relates to gender, a suspect classification in the state of California, regulation of which is subject to a higher level of scrutiny by courts) was not narrowly tailored to the district’s stated purposes of reducing instances of self-harm and promotion of child welfare and safety, and that there are several other, less restrictive ways a policy could promote this interest. The court also provided a detailed outline of the rights parents hold and explained that parents can still exercise these rights by interacting with school personnel.

Next, the court analyzed the equal protection considerations and student privacy rights implicated when a parent is notified that a student requests a change to their official or unofficial record. The court found the policy to be neutral with no equal protection violations, including a lack of evidence that it was created with animus. As to student privacy rights, the parties agreed that this portion of the policy violated adult students’ privacy rights under the California Constitution. The question of minor student privacy prompted a more detailed analysis from the court, which ultimately found that minor students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against their parents in the disclosed information under these specific circumstances.

Because the district had already implemented a new policy, this decision only limits the ability of the district to reinstate the policy as it was.

Passage and challenge to AB 1955
Relatedly, and as mentioned by the court in the permanent injunction, AB 1955, also known as the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act, or SAFETY Act, was recently signed into law. Effective Jan. 1, 2024, AB 1955 prohibits required disclosure of information related to a student’s gender or sexual orientation by school employees (unless otherwise required by law) as well as the enactment or enforcement of a policy, rule or administrative regulation that requires such a disclosure. Soon after its passage, the act was challenged in federal court by Chino Valley USD. The legal action argues that the act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The case is still pending in the district court.

How the permanent injunction and AB 1955 challenge will interact remains to be seen and could result in any number of outcomes based on the superior court’s decision and the possibility of an appeal by either party. There are other, similar cases making their way through the courts, as well. Suffice it to say that this area of the law is in flux and subject to potential change. CSBA will continue to follow these issues as they evolve.

Back to Newsletter