Federal judge skeptical of school district's standing in challenge to California ban on forced outing

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Thursday indicated he was leaning against granting a California school district standing in a case involving a controversial law banning forced outing that becomes effective in the new year.

Chino Valley Unified School District — among others, including some parents — sued Governor Gavin Newsom over Assembly Bill 1955, which prohibits school employees from revealing details about a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression with that student’s consent. The bill, which becomes law on Jan. 1, also restricts school districts from creating policies requiring that disclosure.

U.S. District Court Judge Daneil Calabretta on Thursday said he wanted to focus only on the issue of standing — the right to file a suit — in Newsom’s motion to dismiss. If that issue passes muster, he’ll consider arguments on the merits at a later date.

“I have significant concerns about standing in this case,” the judge said.

Attorney Emily Rae, with the Liberty Justice Center and representing Chino Valley, argued that parents have a right to know if their child has asked a school to use different pronouns when referring to them or if a child is socially transitioning genders. Some districts currently have parental notification policies in place. Assembly Bill 1955 would strip those policies away, which she said would injure parents, giving them standing.

“This could happen and parents would never know,” Rae said of a child transitioning at school without parental knowledge. “That’s the injury.”

The plaintiffs argued in court documents that they have standing if a “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” exists. Rae discarded arguments by the state Attorney General’s Office that her clients have only a moral objection to the law. Instead, she said, their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and due process would be violated.

Calabretta said Rae might be able to make a successful claim in state court. However, he wasn’t convinced such a claim could survive in federal court.

The judge also expressed skepticism that Newsom could be a defendant in the case. If proposing a budget that includes money directed to schools is enough to qualify him as a defendant, the governor could be a defendant in any suit involving California, the judge said.

“And that doesn’t seem to be the law,” he added.

Rae argued that Newsom can punish school districts by imposing fines or withholding money from them. She pointed to a 2023, $1.5 million fine Newsom threatened on the Temecula Valley Unified School District for failing to adopt certain curriculum involving a mention of former San Francisco County Superior Harvey Milk, who was openly gay.

The school district later adopted the curriculum.

Representing the defendants, attorney Jennifer Bunshoft with the attorney general’s office said Chino Valley hasn’t argued that it has concrete facts showing it faces imminent risk from the implementation of Assembly Bill 1955. Additionally, she said the school district shouldn’t be allowed to amend its complaint if Calabretta finds it doesn’t have standing, as there’s no remedy it could use.

Making no decision on Thursday, Calabretta gave both sides two weeks to cite pertinent case law. He said a ruling will then follow.

Assembly Bill 1955 — written by Assemblymember Chris Ward, a San Diego Democrat — quickly became one of the session’s most controversial bills. It regularly drew a large amount of public input. Reaching the floor of the Assembly, Republicans forced a parliamentary struggle that led to the chamber recessing. It later reconvened and passed the bill.

Supporters of the bill said LGBTQ youth needed protection. One Assembly member described how his mother told him, at age 7, she’d disown him if he was gay.

Detractors argued that the bill cast parents as adversaries, and that Newsom believed politicians and school officials knew better than parents about what’s best for children.

Chino Valley filed its suit the day after Newsom signed it into law.