Judge Strikes Down ‘Lying Teacher’ Law

Signs pointing to Lies and Truth against sky.

A federal judge has struck down California’s controversial ‘Lying Teacher’ law, marking a pivotal victory for parental rights.

Story Snapshot

Judge Roger Benitez ruled California’s AB 1955 unconstitutional.
Parents now have a right to know about their children’s gender expressions.
Teachers can inform parents without fear of legal repercussions.
The ruling sets a precedent for parental rights in education.

Judge Declares AB 1955 Unconstitutional

On December 23, 2025, Judge Roger Benitez delivered a significant ruling that struck down California’s Assembly Bill 1955. The law, enacted in July 2024, required teachers to affirm students’ gender identities while keeping these changes confidential from parents. This decision is hailed as a substantial victory for parental rights, affirming that parents have a constitutional right to be informed about their children’s gender expressions in school.

Huge: Judge Delivers Major Blow to CA's Anti-Parent Regime, Rules 'Lying Teacher' Law Unconstitutionalhttps://t.co/9rhfmOLWuR

— RedState (@RedState) December 23, 2025

The ruling also protects teachers, granting them the constitutional right to inform parents about their child’s gender identity without fear of state sanctions. The court’s decision emphasizes that federal constitutional rights to parental notification and teacher speech supersede state policies that prioritize student confidentiality over parental rights.

Impact on California’s Education System

The immediate implications of this ruling are profound. Schools across California must halt the implementation of AB 1955’s confidentiality requirements regarding gender identity. Parents will now receive notifications about their children’s gender identity expressions, and teachers are legally protected to disclose this information. School districts must update their policies and training materials to conform with the court’s decision.

This ruling has broader implications beyond California. It establishes a precedent that could influence other states considering similar parental notification laws. The decision underscores the tension between student privacy and parental rights in educational settings, potentially reshaping the national conversation on these issues.

Reactions and Future Implications

Conservative legal organization Thomas More Society, which represented plaintiffs in the case, celebrated the ruling as a “historic class-action victory” that restores parental rights and blocks gender secrecy policies. This decision represents a shift in power dynamics, favoring parental authority over state-mandated confidentiality in education.

In the long term, this ruling could affect teacher recruitment and retention in California, particularly for those with conscientious or religious objections to the state’s previous policies. It also raises questions about how schools will balance student autonomy with parental involvement in sensitive matters, potentially influencing future educational policies nationwide.