For more than two years, Thomas More Society has been on the front lines of one of the most significant parental rights battles in our nation’s legal history, Mirabelli v. Olson. What began as two courageous teachers standing up for their conscience and the families they serve, has grown into a certified class action representing more than 300,000 teachers and the parents of over 5 million students. The case of Mirabelli v. Olson challenges California’s “Parental Exclusion Policies” or “gender secrecy directives” that force educators to hide critical information from parents about their own children.  

On November 17, Thomas More Society will argue before U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, requesting summary judgment in Mirabelli v. Olson. We want to take you through the major milestones that have brought us to this watershed moment in the fight to protect children, empower parents, and defend the rights of teachers to speak truth.

April 27, 2023: Lawsuit Filed

California teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West filed a federal lawsuit against the Escondido Union School District and the California State Board of Education after being forced to choose between violating their consciences or losing their jobs. The district’s policy, promoted from above by guidance issued by the California Department of Education, required them to deceive parents by hiding students’ gender transitions in school, withholding that information from parents and using different biological pronouns when speaking with parents to cover up what was happening during school hours.  

This Parental Exclusion Policy directly contradicted their deeply held religious beliefs and their free speech rights. The teachers sought protection under the First Amendment, arguing that the policy compelled them to lie to parents about information critical to their children’s wellbeing.

September 14, 2023: Preliminary Injunction Granted

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued a first-of-its-kind preliminary injunction blocking the school district from punishing the teachers for refusing to deceive parents about their children's gender-related issues. Judge Roger Benitez recognized that the teachers were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims, finding that the policy likely violated their First Amendment rights.  

The Court famously labeled these policies a “trifecta of harm” to children, parents, and teachers, marking a critical early victory that affirmed educators cannot be forced to hide vital information from parents about their own children.

September 27, 2023: Open Letter to AG Bonta's Reaction

Following the preliminary injunction, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a “legal alert” attempting to undermine the Court's ruling and encourage schools to maintain Parental Exclusion Policies. Thomas More Society attorneys responded with an open letter exposing the misleading nature of Bonta’s guidance, which misrepresented the Court’s order and California law. The letter called out Bonta’s effort to circumvent a federal court order and continue policies that violate both constitutional rights and parental authority, warning that his actions exposed the state and school districts to massive liability.

January 10, 2024: Teachers Reinstated After District Slow-Walking

After the Escondido Union School District slow-walked compliance with the preliminary injunction for months, a federal court ordered the district to immediately reinstate the teachers to their positions. The victory came after the teachers had been kept out of their classrooms despite the court's clear directive that they be allowed to return.  

January 29, 2024: AG Bonta Added as Defendant

Thomas More Society expanded the lawsuit to include California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom as defendants, arguing that these state officials were actively promoting and enforcing unconstitutional parent-exclusion policies across California. While the court declined to allow Governor Newsom to proceed as a defendant, it permitted the case against Attorney General Bonta to move forward. This expansion elevated the case to a statewide challenge against California’s highest-ranking education officials who were driving the enforcement of these harmful policies.

June 7, 2024: Motion for Class Certification Filed

Thomas More Society attorneys added new plaintiffs: additional teachers, parents affected by Parental Exclusion Policies, and a school district seeking the right to be transparent. The amended complaint also proposes three classes for a proposed class action lawsuit: teachers forced to deceive parents, parents kept in the dark about their children, and school districts caught between conflicting state and federal mandates.  

This expansion sought to protect the rights of thousands of California families and educators facing the same unconstitutional policies. The proposed class action would grant relief protecting parental rights and teacher conscience rights throughout the state, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of teachers and millions of parents.

August 8, 2024: Parents and Teachers Allows to Move Forward in Class Action Bid

The federal court allowed the parent and teacher plaintiffs to join the case and proceed toward requesting class certification, recognizing the widespread harm caused by Parental Exclusion Policies across California. While the Court declined to allow the school district to join the case, this ruling was a step forward for thousands of parents and educators to join the fight against policies that exclude parents from critical decisions about their children.  

April 10, 2025: State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Denied

In an important victory, the federal court denied California education officials’ attempt to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiffs had stated valid constitutional claims. Judge Benitez rejected arguments that the policies were “just a suggestion” and that parents had no fundamental right to be informed about their children’s gender identity at school. The ruling meant that Attorney General Bonta, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and other state education officials would have to defend their promotion of Parental Exclusion Policies in court, clearing the way for the case to proceed to the merits where the constitutionality of California’s gender secrecy regime would be fully examined.

July 16, 2025: Final Summary Judgment Briefing Submitted

Thomas More Society attorneys filed groundbreaking motions including a Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Class Certification, and Motion to Exclude Experts to put an end to Parental Exclusion Policies.  

The comprehensive briefing laid out the full scope of California’s coordinated effort to institutionalize Parental Exclusion Policies across the state, arguing that no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution allows government officials to force teachers to deceive parents about their children’s welfare. The filings also challenged the “junk science” and radical gender ideology underlying the state’s expert testimonies, including powerful testimony about “Child Poe,” whose parents only learned of their daughter’s gender confusion after she attempted suicide.

October 15, 2025: Class Action Officially Certified

In a groundbreaking ruling, the federal court officially certified the class action representing all California parents and teachers affected by unconstitutional Parental Exclusion Policies. This historic certification meant that the case would now represent more than 300,000 California public school teachers and the parents of more than 5 million public school students—potentially becoming one of the largest civil rights class actions in state history. Judge Benitez noted that “injunctive relief on behalf of the proposed class would achieve systemic changes to the California Department of Education that would obviate the need for future lawsuits seeking similar relief,” dramatically expanded the case to potentially provide widespread relief against California’s gender secrecy regime.  

November 7, 2025: Potential Sanctions After New Revelations

The Court ordered California education officials to explain why they should not be sanctioned after Thomas More Society attorneys filed evidence that state officials deceived the court about rescinding gender secrecy policies. New evidence revealed that the CDE quietly moved the challenged gender secrecy directives into mandatory password-protected “PRISM” teacher training materials while claiming in court they had withdrawn the policies.  

The discovery showed the CDE partnered with nineteen LGBTQ+ advocacy groups to distribute identical gender secrecy directives statewide under these groups’ letterheads with full state approval. This dramatic development raised the stakes significantly just days before the summary judgment hearing, as officials now faced potential penalties for allegedly misleading the federal court.

November 17, 2025: Summary Judgment Hearing

In a pivotal summary judgment hearing, the Court will hear final arguments on whether California’s Parental Exclusion Policies violate the Constitution and will also consider imposing sanctions on state officials for allegedly misleading the court.  

This hearing represents the culmination of years of litigation and could result in a landmark ruling protecting parental rights and teacher conscience rights across the state. The outcome will determine whether California can continue forcing educators to hide critical information from parents about their own children, with the potential to deliver statewide relief for all California parents and teachers who have stood against these unconstitutional policies.