TLDR
The City of Huntington Beach and several parent-plaintiffs initiated litigation against California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, to challenge the constitutionality of AB 1955. This legislation prohibits school districts from implementing mandatory reporting policies that would require staff to disclose a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression—including symptoms of gender dysphoria—to others without the pupil’s consent. Plaintiffs argued that these provisions violate their substantive due process rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children, as well as their right to participate in decisions concerning their children’s mental health. Initially, the Ninth Circuit denied preliminary injunctions due to concerns regarding Article III standing. However, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta , the court reconsidered and granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the objecting parents were the “objects” of the challenged regulation and therefore possessed sufficient standing to proceed with their constitutional challenge.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration, granting a preliminary injunction that stops the enforcement of sections of California’s AB 1955. This decision prevents state officials from blocking school districts from disclosing a student’s gender identity or symptoms of gender dysphoria to parents without student consent, specifically regarding the plaintiffs in this case. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent precedent in Mirabelli v. Bonta, the court concluded that parents have a likely constitutional right to be informed of their children’s mental health conditions, including issues regarding gender expression. The ruling marks a major legal defeat for the state, which had argued that the parents lacked the necessary standing to challenge the law.
Case Info
-
Caption: City of Huntington Beach, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, et al.
-
Date: June 18, 2026
-
Decision: View the Ninth Circuit Order
The court held that parents have a substantive due process right to participate in decisions regarding their children’s mental health, including information about gender dysphoria. The injunction prohibits the enforcement of AB 1955 against the specific parent-plaintiffs who challenged the governor’s policy while the case remains on appeal.
The Holding in Mirabelli v. Bonta (607 U.S. 492)
The Ninth Circuit’s decision to rule against the state’s position is rooted in the Supreme Court’s recent guidance on parental rights and standing.
-
Standing as “Objects” of Regulation: The Supreme Court held that parents who object to state policies that conceal their children’s gender-related mental health symptoms are the “objects” of the regulation, granting them Article III standing to sue.
-
Substantive Due Process: The Mirabelli Court reaffirmed that parents possess primary authority over the “upbringing and education of children,” which includes the right not to be excluded from decisions regarding a child’s mental health.
-
No Individualized Showing Required: The Court clarified that parents do not need to prove their specific child is currently experiencing gender dysphoria to maintain a challenge; the mere fact that they object to the state’s secrecy policy is sufficient.
Impact on Parental Rights and Gender Information
By applying the Mirabelli framework, the Ninth Circuit determined that AB 1955 functions as an unlawful impediment to a constitutional requirement. The court found that because the law regulates school information exchanges regarding a pupil’s gender identity or expression, it directly impacts the ability of parents to fulfill their constitutional role in their children’s care.
Case Timeline
-
December 2024–Early 2026: The City of Huntington Beach and various parents sued to challenge California policies; the Ninth Circuit previously denied injunctions due to standing concerns.
-
June 18, 2026: The Ninth Circuit reversed its stance, granting the preliminary injunction following the Mirabelli decision.
Arguments
-
Plaintiffs (Huntington Beach, et al.): Argued that AB 1955 unconstitutionally blocks parents from critical information about their children’s mental health.
-
Defendants (Gavin Newsom, et al.): Argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and could not demonstrate a substantial risk of injury or that their school districts would otherwise disclose the information.
Court’s Reasoning
The panel concluded that Mirabelli effectively demolished the state’s standing arguments. The court held that because AB 1955 prohibits mandatory reporting policies that the Constitution may require, the objecting parents are the targets of the law and are therefore entitled to injunctive relief. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the deprivation of constitutional rights inherently constitutes irreparable harm.
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit’s decision represents a definitive check on the state’s regulatory authority regarding parental notification. By siding with the City of Huntington Beach and the parents, the court has prioritized parental access to mental health information over the state’s policy of withholding such data without student consent.
The practical application of this rule is broad: the state can no longer rely on the argument that parents must prove a “certainly impending” injury to challenge secrecy policies. As long as a parent objects to a policy that prevents the school from sharing information about gender identity or dysphoria, they now have a clear path to seek judicial intervention.
What to Expect Next
The case remains pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The injunction will remain in force until the court reaches a final decision on the merits of the appeal.
Citations
-
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Order in City of Huntington Beach, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, et al., No. 25-3826 (June 18, 2026).
-
Supreme Court of the United States, Mirabelli v. Bonta, 607 U.S. 492 (2026).
Subscribe
Join ReligiousLiberty.TV to receive breaking news, case summaries, and expert constitutional analysis. Subscribers gain direct access to legal updates as they happen.
