When a California mother discovered that her 11-year-old daughter had been socially transitioned to a boy by school staff without her knowledge, she turned to the courts for answers. Two years later, a federal appeals court has revived her lawsuit, ruling that the lower court wrongly dismissed her claims. The decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over parental rights, student privacy, and school gender policies — an issue now drawing attention well beyond California’s borders.
The case at a glance
The case, Regino v. Staley, was filed by Aurora Regino in January 2023 against the Chico Unified School District (CUSD) and Superintendent Kelly Staley. Regino alleges that school officials at Sierra View Elementary allowed her daughter, identified as A.S. in court documents, to adopt a male name and pronouns at school without informing her family.According to filings, this occurred under a district policy that required parental notification only with the student’s consent, effectively preventing parents from being told about a child’s declared gender identity if the child objected. Regino argues that this policy violated her constitutional right to direct the upbringing and welfare of her child under the Fourteenth Amendment.
What the court decided
After Regino’s lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge John Mendez in July 2023, she appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2025, the appellate panel reversed the dismissal, stating that the lower court had “applied an incorrect legal standard” by requiring pre-existing precedent to recognise the parental right in question.The Ninth Circuit wrote that while no identical precedent existed, the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children was “long recognised under constitutional due process.” The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.In its opinion, the panel stopped short of ruling on the constitutionality of the school district’s policy, instead clarifying that Regino’s claims were substantial enough to merit a full hearing.
Reactions to the ruling
The decision has been hailed by Regino’s legal team at the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit public-interest law firm, as a victory for parental rights. “This ruling restores a critical safeguard for families,” said Emily Rae, an attorney representing Regino. “Parents, not bureaucrats, have the right to make major decisions about their children’s identities and wellbeing.”The Chico Unified School District, in a statement to the media, said it would continue to “follow state and federal guidelines on student confidentiality” while defending its policy in court. “Our staff are committed to creating a safe environment for all students,” the statement added, emphasising that the district’s actions were consistent with California’s educational code and anti-discrimination laws.
Broader legal and social implications
Legal analysts describe the Ninth Circuit’s decision as one of the first appellate-level rulings allowing a parental-rights challenge to proceed in the context of school gender policies. While the ruling does not determine liability, it opens the door for courts to weigh how far public schools can go in supporting students’ gender transitions without parental consent.The decision could also influence similar lawsuits filed in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Wisconsin, where parents have made comparable claims. It adds to a growing divide between states adopting student privacy protections for gender identity and those advancing parental notification laws.“Courts are now being asked to navigate an emerging conflict between two constitutional values: the right to privacy and the right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing,” said Professor Neal Devins, a constitutional law scholar at William & Mary Law School. “This case underscores the need for clearer legal guidance as these policies proliferate across districts.”
How it began
According to Regino’s complaint, her daughter confided to a school counsellor in 2022 that she “felt like a boy.” Without consulting Regino, the counsellor began referring to the child by a male name and pronouns in class and correspondence. Regino said she only learned about it months later, when her daughter mentioned the new identity at home.“I was shocked,” Regino told reporters in 2023. “No one at the school ever called me, met with me, or even told me this was happening. As a mother, I had the right to know.”The case quickly gained national attention, with critics arguing that such policies undermine parents, while supporters claim they protect vulnerable children from potential harm or rejection at home.
The wider debate
California law currently gives schools discretion on whether to inform parents about a student’s gender identity, with several districts adopting confidentiality rules to protect student privacy. The California Department of Education maintains that these policies comply with state anti-discrimination standards.Conservative legal groups, however, have framed the issue as a question of parental authority and transparency, warning that secrecy undermines family trust. Civil liberties advocates counter that forced disclosure could endanger transgender and questioning youth, particularly in unsupportive households.The Ninth Circuit’s ruling does not take a side in that policy debate but reaffirms that such questions belong before a court, not dismissed on procedural grounds.
What happens next
The case now returns to Judge Mendez’s courtroom in the Eastern District of California for a renewed hearing on the merits. Both sides are expected to file updated briefs later in 2025.If Regino ultimately prevails, the decision could reshape how schools nationwide handle gender identity disclosures to parents. Conversely, if the district’s policy is upheld, it could reinforce the principle of student autonomy in gender matters under school care.For now, the Ninth Circuit’s message is clear: the question of who decides what children are told, and when parents should be informed, is not settled — and deserves a full hearing in court. Go to Source
