US District Court Roger T. Benitez (Bush) entered the injunction barring officials from enforcing state policies, writing in in a 52-page decision "The State’s desire to protect vulnerable children from harassment and discrimination is laudable," but that "<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">the parental exclusion policies create a trifecta of harm</strong>: they harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse."

"<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">They harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children</strong>, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students," the decision continues. 

Among California's policies are <strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">rules prohibiting teachers from telling parents when their children begin going by a different name and/or gender</strong>, and forces teachers to use the child's chosen names and pronouns when parents are not around. (Homeschooling FTW). 

Lawyers for the state argued that the policies provide a safe learning environment such that children "can learn without fear of being outed to their parents before they are ready."

In his ruling, Benitez said that <strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">the state's interest is too broad</strong> and not narrowly tailored to respect parental rights.

"In articulating their interest, the State Defendants completely ignore the fact that parents of students possess a free exercise right to direct a child’s religious teaching," he said. 

As the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Epoch Times</em> notes further, the permanent injunction includes language <strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">that bars any employee in California’s education system from “misleading the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school,</strong> whether by: (i) directly lying to the parent; (ii) preventing the parent from accessing educational records of the child; or (iii) using a different set of preferred pronouns/names when speaking with the parents than is being used at school.”

Attorneys for the Thomas More Society, who are representing teachers in the case, celebrated the ruling.

“<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Court’s comprehensive ruling—granting summary judgment on all claims—protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense,</strong>” Paul Jonna, special counsel at the society, said in a statement.

“With this decisive ruling from Judge Benitez, all state and local school officials that mandate gender secrecy policies should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences.”

The Office of the California Attorney General has not yet released a statement on the decision, and an email seeking comment was not returned by publication time.