The intersection of federal privacy law, parental rights, and student gender identity has become one of the most actively litigated areas of education law. For example, on January 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) found that the California Department of Education (CDE) violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)—a federal statute granting parents the right to access their children’s education records—by maintaining policies that pressure school officials to conceal students’ gender transitions from their parents.
That enforcement action has unfolded alongside significant Supreme Court rulings in Mirabelli v. Bonta and Mahmoud v. Taylor, reaffirming broad parental rights under both the Free Exercise and Due Process Clauses. Most recently, on June 8, 2026, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division launched a separate compliance review into four California public school districts under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) involving instruction on sexual orientation and gender ideology in grades pre-K through 12. Together, these developments have created a rapidly shifting legal landscape with nationwide implications for school districts.
The FERPA Finding Against California
SPPO’s investigation concluded that California state laws, guidance, and legal actions—including Assembly Bill 1955 (AB 1955), which prohibits school boards from requiring school employees to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender or gender-nonconforming—have effectively coerced school districts to withhold information from parents in violation of FERPA. SPPO further determined that CDE directed schools to maintain secret “gender support plans” in separate filing systems for the primary purpose of concealing those records from parents and that CDE’s guidance incorrectly characterized those plans as falling outside the category of education records accessible to parents under FERPA. District leaders reported being placed in the untenable position of having to choose between complying with federal law or facing legal action from the State.
SPPO offered CDE the opportunity to voluntarily resolve its FERPA violations. The required remedial steps included formally notifying school officials that gender support plans are FERPA-protected education records accessible to parents; confirming that no state law—including AB 1955—can override FERPA’s requirements; obtaining written compliance certifications from local educational agencies (LEAs); and incorporating SPPO-approved FERPA training into existing California educator training programs. CDE declined to adopt SPPO’s broader remedial requirements in full; its response and the simultaneous filing of a legal challenge are addressed in detail below.
Mirabelli v. Bonta: The Supreme Court Weighs In
Concurrent with the U.S. Department of Education’s enforcement actions, a federal constitutional challenge to California’s parental notification policies reached the United States Supreme Court. In Mirabelli v. Bonta, parents and teachers challenged California policies prohibiting public schools from informing parents about their children’s gender transition at school absent the child’s consent. A federal district court sided with the parents, ruling that they have a constitutional right to access that information under both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and issued a permanent injunction. In January 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked that injunction, characterizing it as too “sweeping” and “ambiguous” and likely wrong on the merits, and stayed it pending appeal.
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay, finding the parent plaintiffs were likely to prevail on both their free exercise and substantive due process claims and that they would suffer irreparable harm in the interim. The Court held that California’s policies substantially interfered with parents’ constitutional right to guide the religious development of their children—an intrusion even greater than the burden the Court addressed in its 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor—and that the policies likely violated parents’ long-established right to direct their children’s education and upbringing.
California’s Counterchallenge
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s intervention, California has mounted an aggressive legal defense of its policies. On February 11, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco against the Department of Education, Secretary Linda McMahon, and others. The suit seeks a court declaration that the state is not out of compliance with FERPA and an order vacating the Department’s findings letter, which the state has characterized as “an unconstitutional attempt to impose new conditions on the $4.9 billion in federal education funding.” California disputes the Department’s FERPA interpretation on multiple grounds, arguing that the statute imposes no affirmative disclosure duty absent a parental request, that no such request has ever been denied, and that the coercion finding is unsupported by the evidence.
At the same time, CDE issued a formal guidance letter to all county and district superintendents and charter school administrators addressing the application of FERPA to gender-related student support plans. The letter confirmed that gender support plans are FERPA-protected education records accessible to parents and clarified that AB 1955 does not mandate nondisclosure—a distinction central to California’s defense in the lawsuit.
DOJ Civil Rights Division Compliance Review
The federal government’s scrutiny of California policies also did not end with the FERPA proceedings. On June 8, 2026, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division launched a compliance review into four California public school districts (Graves Elementary School District, San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), Santa Rita Union School District, and Soledad Unified School District) regarding instruction on sexual orientation and gender ideology in grades pre-K through 12. The review will examine whether, and to what extent, these districts have notified parents of their right to opt their children out of such instruction. Under California law, sex education must include sexual orientation and gender ideology topics, and while parental notice and opt-out provisions apply to “all or part of” sex education, SFUSD has previously advised its teachers that neither parental permission nor notification is required to teach or discuss sexual orientation and gender ideology topics. Further, sexual orientation and gender ideology topics appear to be embedded in California’s social studies and history classes. The review will also assess policies permitting access to single-sex intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, and girls’ sports teams based on gender identity rather than biological sex.
DOJ will evaluate whether the four districts are adhering to Title IX, and will assess what actions, if any, they have taken in response to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mirabelli v. Bonta and Mahmoud v. Taylor. As Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon stated: “The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Mahmoud and Mirabelli have put all school districts on notice: Policies that keep parents in the dark about sexuality and gender ideology in the classroom must end now.” The Civil Rights Division has not reached any conclusions about the subject matter of the review.
What This Means for School Districts
This confluence of federal enforcement action, Supreme Court intervention, and expanding litigation raises fundamental questions about the respective roles of federal law, state law, and parental constitutional rights in the governance of public education. While the most active legal battles are currently centered in California, the Department of Education’s interpretation of FERPA, the Justice Department’s Title IX compliance review, and the Supreme Court’s likely affirmation of broad parental rights under both the Free Exercise and Due Process Clauses carry nationwide implications for how school districts design and implement policies concerning student gender identity.
School districts across the country that receive federal funding must carefully evaluate their compliance on two distinct fronts: First, whether their student records policies satisfy FERPA’s parental access requirements, given that federal authorities have made clear that state law directives contrary to FERPA will not be recognized as a defense to noncompliance; and second, whether their practices regarding sexual orientation and gender ideology instruction, parental opt-out notification, and access to sex-segregated facilities and athletics comply with Title IX. Districts in states with statutes like AB 1955, and those that have embedded sexual orientation and gender ideology topics in their curriculum without adequate parental notification protocols, face potential legal exposure and should proactively assess their practices on both fronts.
Husch Blackwell will continue to monitor these cases and provide relevant updates as this area of law continues to evolve. If you have questions about how these developments may affect your district’s policies or need guidance navigating your compliance obligations under FERPA, Title IX, and related federal law, please contact the authors or your Husch Blackwell attorney.