Examples:

• • The Chino Valley Unified School District’s Board Policy 5010 requiring parental notice of changes to a student’s official records would be invalidated by AB 1955.
  • A kindergarten teacher couldn’t inform parents that their 5-year-old asked to use a different name/pronouns in class without the child’s consent.
  • An administrator who reveals a middle schooler’s request to transition genders to their parents without permission could face disciplinary action.
  • A coach who sees a transgender athlete being bullied in the locker room couldn’t discuss the situation with the student’s family without approval.
  • Schools would still notify parents if their child was in a fight or failed a class, but not if they asked to change their name, pronouns, or gender expression on campus.

How AB 1955 Changes the Status Quo:

• • Overrides local policies requiring parental notification and involvement in their child’s gender identity decisions and shifts power to students and the state.
  • Allows schools to facilitate a child’s social transition without informing parents, even for very young students not usually given this level of autonomy.
  • Threatens teachers/staff with consequences for disclosing a student’s gender-related information to parents without the child’s permission.
  • Creates a knowledge gap where parents could be unaware that their child is presenting as a different gender at school vs. at home.
  • Affords gender identity a uniquely protected status compared to other important aspects of a child’s health, education, and upbringing.

FAQs:

• • What kind of gender identity policies does AB 1955 prohibit? Any school rule requiring parental notification if a child asks to change their name, pronouns, or gender expression at school without the student’s consent.
  • Does the law apply to charter and private schools? The text specifically mentions school districts, county education offices, and state special schools, but not charters or private schools.
  • Are there any exceptions to the parental notification ban? Only if otherwise required by state/federal law, which the plaintiffs argue includes FERPA’s guarantee of parental access to educational records.
  • When did AB 1955 take effect? The law was signed July 15, 2024 but doesn’t take effect until January 1, 2025, giving the plaintiffs a window to challenge it before implementation.
  • What type of gender transition does AB 1955 cover? The bill focuses on “social transition” like name/pronoun changes, not medical procedures such as hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery.

Examples:

• • Plaintiff Oscar Avila is the parent of an 11th grader in the Chino Valley district and believes his right to raise his child according to his faith is violated by AB 1955.
  • Studies show gender dysphoric youth who socially transition are more likely to persist in their transgender identity, even if they may have grown out of it otherwise.
  • Without policies like CVUSD’s in place, a depressed 14-year-old could start secretly living as the opposite sex at school without their parents’ awareness or support.
  • Districts in Temecula Valley, Orange County, Rocklin, and other areas have similar parental notification rules on the books that will become void.
  • CVUSD argues AB 1955 forces districts to choose between complying with the state law or respecting parents’ constitutional rights, putting them in legal jeopardy either way.

Central Factual Disputes:

• • Do policies requiring schools to inform parents of their child’s social transition put vulnerable LGBTQ youth at greater risk of harm from unsupportive families?
  • Is keeping a child’s gender identity hidden from parents at school truly protecting the student’s best interests and constitutional privacy rights?
  • Should schools or parents get the final say in life-altering decisions for minor children too young to fully understand the long-term ramifications of transitioning?
  • Did the legislature adequately consider AB 1955’s potential to deprive parents of critical information about their child’s mental health?
  • Can schools legally enable a student to maintain separate home and school gender identities without violating parents’ rights to guide their child’s upbringing?

FAQs:

• • Why is Chino Valley USD a plaintiff in this case? The district has an existing policy requiring parental notification of student record changes that will be invalidated by AB 1955, forcing it to choose which law to violate.
  • Are all the parent plaintiffs from the same school district? No, the parent plaintiffs have children attending public schools in several different districts across the state.
  • How young are the children of the parent plaintiffs? They range from preschool to 12th grade, showing how AB 1955 impacts families with kids of all ages.
  • Have other districts joined CVUSD in suing over AB 1955 so far? Not at this stage, but the outcome will affect policies in districts throughout CA that mandate parental involvement in social transition decisions.
  • Is keeping transition info secret from parents legal in other states? Some states have similar policies, but many are facing legal challenges on grounds of violating parental rights.

Examples:

• • The Supreme Court has long recognized parental rights as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” protected by the Constitution.
  • A first-grader wanting teachers to call them by opposite sex pronouns doesn’t override their parents’ authority to learn of and weigh in on that decision.
  • We don’t let 10-year-olds get tattoos or 15-year-olds buy cars on their own, so socially transitioning at school shouldn’t be a solo choice either.
  • If a teen girl asked for breast implants but didn’t want to tell her parents, we wouldn’t expect a doctor to secretly do the surgery anyway.

Key Parental Rights Issues:

• • Does secretly facilitating a child’s social transition at school without parental notice or consent violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of parental authority over profound decisions?
  • Will AB 1955 disrupt the crucial role of parents in making informed choices about whether and when a gender transition is truly in their child’s long-term best interests?
  • Should teachers/staff with limited knowledge of a child’s background be empowered to hide and even enable life-altering identity changes from that student’s family?
  • Does the state have any compelling justification for depriving all parents of this information, even those who would be loving and supportive of their child’s transition?
  • Can courts uphold AB 1955’s parental notification ban without setting a dangerous precedent for eroding parental rights in other areas of a child’s life?

FAQs:

• • Is AB 1955’s ban on parental notification limited to gender transitions? Yes, the bill only restricts schools from telling parents about issues related to their child’s gender identity and expression.
  • Does AB 1955 require active parental consent for social transition? No, just that schools can’t adopt policies that proactively inform parents without the student’s permission.
  • What does current CA law say about parental consent for transition? Minors under 18 need parental approval for legal name/gender changes and medical transition treatments.
  • How does FERPA factor into the parental rights debate? The plaintiffs argue FERPA, which mandates parental access to educational records, preempts AB 1955’s secrecy provisions.
  • Can schools keep other sensitive info from parents under AB 1955? No, the bill only covers disclosures related specifically to gender identity issues, not academic, disciplinary, or other records.

Examples:

• • The parent plaintiffs’ Christian beliefs that God created humans as immutable biological males/females is substantially burdened by AB 1955’s secrecy mandate.
  • An observant Catholic family could be kept in the dark while their child is affirmed as “transgender” at school, coercing them to live in a way that violates their faith.
  • Schools don’t withhold info from parents in other sensitive situations like teen pregnancy or drug use, so the law isn’t neutrally applied.
  • Asserting a general interest in student privacy isn’t enough to justify forcing families to surrender their 1st Amendment rights under AB 1955.
  • If a student has unsupportive parents, address that specific situation rather than gag all schools from ever notifying any parents about gender transitions.

Key Religious Liberty Questions:

• • Can the government compel parents to defer to their child’s desires in an area that implicates fundamental religious convictions about human identity and biology?
  • Is a “social transition” truly a purely secular matter, or do schools facilitating it without parental involvement raise significant Free Exercise problems?
  • Does AB 1955’s narrow focus on gender identity mean it flunks the general applicability test and must withstand strict scrutiny to be constitutional?
  • Will courts find the state’s asserted pupil privacy concerns compelling enough to trump parents’ religious right to guide their child’s identity development?
  • Are there alternative policies CA could pursue to protect vulnerable trans students without resorting to a total ban on parental notification?

FAQs:

• • What makes a religious belief “sincerely held”? Courts look at factors like whether it’s a longstanding tenet, consistently followed, and central to the person’s faith, not just a pretext.
  • Do all major religions view gender as binary and immutable? Many do teach that sex/gender is a fixed, God-given trait, but some faiths are evolving on transgender inclusion.
  • Could AB 1955 impact faiths besides Christianity? Yes, it arguably burdens any religious parents whose beliefs on gender/identity are violated by secret school transitions.
  • Have other courts ruled on similar notification laws? Some have upheld and others have struck down such policies, so the issue is still hotly contested.
  • What would strict scrutiny of AB 1955 require? The state must prove the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest, using the least restrictive means possible.

Examples:

• • If a student legally changes their name/gender, schools must make that update to “directory information” accessible to parents under FERPA.
  • Teacher notes, counselor records, or internal memos about a child’s stated gender identity likely qualify as protected education records under federal law.
  • Schools can’t refuse a parent’s valid FERPA request for their child’s information just because a conflicting state law like AB 1955 tells them to withhold it.
  • Absent specific language in FERPA itself allowing gender transition details to be kept confidential, the default presumption is that parents have a right to that material.
  • If AB 1955 is ambiguous on whether gender-related records are exempt from disclosure, courts should read it as complying with FERPA to avoid a clash of laws.

Preemption Pitfalls to Ponder:

• • Would enforcing AB 1955’s parental notification ban put schools in an impossible position of having to violate FERPA’s parental access requirements?
  • Can California courts find a way to uphold AB 1955 without putting it on a collision course with federal law that would potentially invalidate it?
  • Does FERPA’s text or implementing regulations offer any basis for reading a “gender identity privacy exception” into the parental access mandate?
  • Should pupil privacy concerns about revealing a child’s transgender status trump the general rule that parents are entitled to review their education records?
  • Might FERPA itself be unconstitutional if courts interpret it as allowing schools to keep life-altering information about a child’s mental health secret from parents?

FAQs:

• • What other laws besides FERPA cover school records? Medical info in education files may also be protected by HIPAA but FERPA is the main statute on point.
  • Are there any limits on parental access under FERPA? Schools can withhold records like staff personal notes that aren’t widely shared or do not directly relate to the student.
  • How do FERPA violations get investigated and enforced? The U.S. Department of Education handles complaints and can pull a school’s federal funding for uncorrected infractions.
  • Has FERPA been challenged on constitutional grounds before? Yes, but courts have upheld it as a valid exercise of Congress’ spending power to impose conditions on schools getting federal aid.
  • What if the student is 18 or older? FERPA and many state laws transfer privacy rights from the parents to the student once they turn 18 or enter college.

Examples:

• • Conservative states may cite a ruling against AB 1955 to justify their own laws mandating parental notice and consent for any gender transition actions.
  • If the law is upheld, expect blue states to copy this policy and GOP-led states to seek congressional legislation or a constitutional amendment overturning it.
  • Mainstream medical orgs could revise their position statements on social transition based on emerging research, prompting a wave of amended school policies.
  • The 9th Circuit is likely to be more deferential to pupil confidentiality concerns while conservative circuits will probably prioritize parental rights.
  • Like with same-sex marriage, SCOTUS may leave gender identity policies to the states at first but eventually take a case to set a national standard.

Big Picture Questions to Consider:

• • In our federalist system, how much leeway should states have to set their own policies on sensitive issues like parental rights and gender identity?
  • As cultural attitudes on transgenderism rapidly evolve, can courts keep up to ensure pupils, parents and educators all have clear legal guidance?
  • With passions running high on all sides, how can we foster more nuanced, productive dialogue to develop policies that respect everyone’s rights?
  • Do schools have the training and resources to competently navigate the complex medical, legal and ethical issues around childhood gender transition?
  • How can policymakers, families and professionals work together to ensure questioning youth get the support they need without being prematurely pushed in any one direction?

FAQs:

• • When is the lawsuit likely to be resolved? With multiple stages of litigation expected, it will probably be a year or more before a definitive outcome, possibly longer.
  • What happens if the law is struck down? The pre-AB 1955 status quo allowing districts to set their own parental notification policies would be restored unless/until new legislation passes.
  • Who is representing the parties in this case? Experienced constitutional litigators from advocacy groups will argue for both sides, reflecting the high stakes and public interest.
  • Are any other states considering similar legislation? While some have introduced similar bills, none have yet enacted a law exactly like AB 1955 being challenged here.
  • Could this case affect LGBTQ+ rights beyond the school context? A broad ruling for either side could have ripple effects on other laws and policies around privacy, parental authority and transgender inclusion.

Questions: AB 1955 Basics

• • 1. What does AB 1955 do in regards to parental rights?
    • A) Expands parental access to information
    • B) Prohibits school policies requiring parental notification
    • C) Gives parents full control over student records
    • D) Makes parental consent optional for name changes
  • 2. What grade levels are covered by AB 1955’s provisions?
    • A) K-6 only
    • B) 7-12 only
    • C) Preschool through high school
    • D) College and above
  • 3. Does AB 1955 allow students to change their official school records without parental approval?
    • A) Yes, for students of any age
    • B) Yes, but only for students 15+
    • C) No, parental consent is still required
    • D) No, but schools don’t have to tell parents if records change
  • 4. When does AB 1955 go into effect?
    • A) Immediately upon passage
    • B) January 1, 2025
    • C) The 2025-26 school year
    • D) Whenever the lawsuit is resolved
  • 5. Which of the following is true about AB 1955?
    • A) It was passed unanimously
    • B) It bans social transition entirely
    • C) It is the first law of its kind in the U.S.
    • D) It has been ruled unconstitutional

Answers: AB 1955 Basics

• • 1. B) AB 1955 prohibits schools from adopting policies that would require parental notification of a student’s gender identity without the student’s permission.
  • 2. C) The law applies to students at all grade levels from preschool through 12th grade, regardless of age.
  • 3. C) Parental consent is still required to change a student’s official school records in California, but AB 1955 limits schools notifying parents of gender ID issues.
  • 4. B) While the bill was signed into law on July 15, 2024, it does not actually take effect until January 1, 2025.
  • 5. C) California is the first state to enact a law prohibiting schools from having policies that require disclosing a student’s gender identity to their parents.

Questions: Constitutional Issues & Lawsuit

• • 1. What is the main federal law the plaintiffs argue preempts AB 1955?
    • A) Title IX
    • B) HIPAA
    • C) FERPA
    • D) The Equal Protection Clause
  • 2. Which constitutional amendment do the parent plaintiffs argue AB 1955 violates?
    • A) 1st Amendment free speech clause
    • B) 2nd Amendment right to bear arms
    • C) 10th Amendment states’ rights
    • D) 14th Amendment due process clause
  • 3. What is the legal doctrine of parents’ right to direct their children’s upbringing grounded in?
    • A) Substantive due process
    • B) Procedural due process
    • C) The Free Exercise Clause
    • D) The Establishment Clause
  • 4. What makes a law not “generally applicable” under the Free Exercise Clause?
    • A) It substantially burdens religious practice
    • B) It was motivated by religious animus
    • C) It treats comparable secular conduct more favorably
    • D) It mentions a specific religion by name
  • 5. Who is named as a defendant in the AB 1955 lawsuit?
    • A) Governor Newsom
    • B) Attorney General Bonta
    • C) Superintendent Thurmond
    • D) All of the above

Answers: Constitutional Issues & Lawsuit

• • 1. C) The plaintiffs argue AB 1955 is preempted by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)’s parental access provisions.
  • 2. D) Parent plaintiffs claim AB 1955 violates their 14th Amendment substantive due process right to direct the upbringing of their children.
  • 3. A) Parental rights are grounded in substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental liberties from state interference.
  • 4. C) A law is not generally applicable if it has a system of individualized exemptions or favors secular conduct, subjecting it to strict scrutiny.
  • 5. D) The governor, attorney general, and state superintendent are all named as defendants in their official capacities.

Disclaimer

The legal analysis provided in this article discussing the AB 1955 federal lawsuit is for general informational purposes only. It is not intended as formal legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Laws, court precedents, and litigation tactics may have changed since the article’s publication. Expert application of legal principles to the specific facts and jurisdictions involved is required for a complete assessment of the case.

For tailored guidance on your rights or involvement in matters related to policies on transgender students and parental notification, please consult a licensed attorney in your state with experience in relevant areas of constitutional and education law.