9th Circuit Court Temporarily Blocks Lower Court Forced Outing Ruling In California
A lower court ruling would have required schools to allow teachers to out transgender students to their parents.
Last week, a federal judge known for conservative decisions, Judge Roger Benitez, ruled that California must allow schools and teachers to forcibly out transgender students to their parents—a decision that directly threatened to overturn California law protecting student privacy for LGBTQ+ students and prohibiting such mandatory disclosures that have been passed in a handful of school districts in the state. Now, just days later, the Ninth Circuit has stepped in. A panel composed of Chief Judge Mary Murguia and Judges Andrew Hurwitz and Salvador Mendoza—all Democratic appointees—has issued an initial order temporarily blocking the lower court’s ruling, preserving the status quo while the case proceeds.
Judge Benitez’s ruling will be blocked for at least the next week, according to the San Francisco Times. The ruling was issued on behalf of the Thomas More Society, a Roman Catholic conservative nonprofit representing parents in the Escondido School District, which had adopted a forced-outing policy. While the lower court judge ruled that the district must allow schools to forcibly out students to their parents when a student is transgender, that decision is now paused as the state of California presents its case before the court of appeals.
“Judge Benitez’s dangerous ruling goes far beyond the SAFETY Act and broadly targets numerous California laws and protections for transgender and gender-nonconforming students—attempting to invalidate critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear,” said Equality California in a statement following the initial ruling.
Forced outing is a harmful practice. The Trevor Project reports that LGBTQ+ youth in schools with forced outing and other anti-trans policies report significantly higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide attempts. Another study by UConn reports, “The team found that respondents who were outed (about 30%) to their parents were more likely to experience elevated depressive symptoms and lower LGBTQ family support compared to those who were not. Parents who affirmed and supported their child’s identity could potentially mitigate depressive symptoms from the stress of being outed.” Importantly, not every family is supportive, and forced outing often leads to transgender youth being forced outside of their home or abused.
The block, however, is only temporary as the case moves forward. Still, the composition of the appellate panel offers transgender students a measure of relief: all three judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, increasing the likelihood that California’s protections against forced outing will remain in place for now. That relief may be short-lived. Given the Supreme Court’s repeated willingness to intervene in cases involving transgender rights, especially to revive policies advanced by conservative judges, further review is likely. Regardless of the outcome, this case is poised to reach far beyond California, shaping the future of whether states can protect transgender students from being forcibly outed by their schools.
Why is it that we never hear of laws requiring schools to notify parents if their child decides to write left-handed, or to become vegetarian, or to become religious, or become/do almost ANY OTHER THING that a child might decide to change. Here's a thought. How about requiring that schools call parents when their child decides to bully another for simply being themselves?
I look forward to SCOTUS preserving that stay -- or explaining in detail how forcing schools to help parents abuse their children is a good thing . . .
/sarc