San Diego, CA - In a significant development, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez today ordered the California Department of Education (CDE) and counsel with Attorney General Rob Bonta's office to appear in court and explain why they should not be sanctioned, less than an hour after Thomas More Society attorneys filed evidence showing state officials deceived the Court in the landmark parental rights case Mirabelli v. Olson. The swift judicial action came after TMS revealed that state officials misrepresented to the Court the status of controversial gender secrecy policies, while quietly continuing enforcement through mandatory teacher training, just ten days before a pivotal November 17 summary judgment hearing.

According to the filing, the state defendants misrepresented that they had withdrawn the challenged directives prohibiting teachers from informing parents when a student expresses a desire to socially transition genders at school. The challenged directives were quietly removed from a CDE FAQ page, but Thomas More Society attorneys revealed that near-identical language is still present and being enforced within mandatory “PRISM” teacher training materials.

“This is one of the most egregious attempts I’ve seen—if not the most—to mislead a Court,” said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna. “It’s also a slap in the face to all of the California parents and teachers that are members of this certified federal civil rights class action. We will do everything we can to make sure the State Defendants and their counsel are held fully accountable under the law.”

In response to the Thomas More Society filing, Judge Benitez ordered the defendants to appear and show cause as to why the Court should not impose sanctions for misleading the Court. The matter will be considered at the upcoming summary judgment hearing on November 17.

“The California Department of Education and State Defendants have repeatedly asked the Court to dismiss the claims against them on the basis that they’re ‘moot’ because the challenged ‘guidance’ mandating gender secrecy policies was supposedly taken down from the CDE website and replaced with new guidance,” continued Jonna. “That argument was frivolous and rejected by the Court earlier this year, but the State Defendants recently made it again, nonetheless.”

“Just this week, we discovered something much more sinister at play. Instead of just taking down the challenged directives, as they told the Court, the State Defendants covertly ported them over to a mandatory teacher training called ‘PRISM.’ The State Defendants and their lawyers with the Attorney General’s office were telling the Court one thing—that they’ve done away with the challenged directives—in order to extract themselves from this case, all while doing the complete opposite, that is, continuing to require the challenged directives.”

In October, Judge Benitez officially certified Mirabelli v. Olson as a class action on behalf of all California parents and teachers who object to school district policies that conceal children’s gender transitions from their families, referred to as “Parental Exclusion Policies.”

“From day one, officials from the local school district all the way to the governor’s mansion have tried to deflect responsibility and pretend these policies don’t exist and are not harmful,” said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation. “They know this is a losing legal battle. Now they’ve been caught not only lying to California taxpayers but attempting to mislead the Court to escape accountability. That’s unacceptable.”

“This type of deception will not stand,” Breen continued. “We look forward to getting justice for the brave teachers and parents who have stood up against these morally and legally wrong gender secrecy mandates and finally putting an end to this charade once and for all.”

Read the Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions, with Exhibits, filed by Thomas More Society attorneys, here.

Read the Order to Show Cause Why State Defendants Should Not Be Sanctioned For Misleading The Court Regarding Mootness Arguments, issued by District Judge Roger Benitez, here.