California gender identity rules for schools give transgender and nonbinary students the right to use restrooms and locker rooms, join sex-segregated teams and activities, and be called by the name and pronouns that match their gender identity, regardless of what their school records say. Those rights sit in the Education Code and have held up in state court for over a decade. What changed in 2026 is the parental-notification piece: a U.S. Supreme Court order in Mirabelli v. Bonta has blocked California’s practice of keeping a student’s gender identity from parents, at least for the families in that case, and the full reach of the ruling is still being worked out.
Facilities, Sports, and School Activities
Education Code Section 221.5(f), added by Assembly Bill 1266 and in effect since January 1, 2014, says a student must be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, athletic teams, and competitions, and to use facilities, consistent with their gender identity, regardless of the gender listed in their school records.1California Legislative Information. California Code EDC 221.5
In practice, a student who identifies as female can use the girls’ restroom and locker room and try out for a girls’ team even if her enrollment paperwork says male. Schools cannot condition any of this on medical documentation, a legal name change, or any other proof. The broader anti-discrimination rule behind this sits in Education Code Section 220, which bars discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression in any program or activity run by an educational institution receiving state financial assistance.2California Legislative Information. California Code EDC 220 – Prohibition of Discrimination Harassment, bullying, and exclusion on these grounds are unlawful. Multiple legal challenges have been filed against AB 1266, and California courts have consistently upheld it.
Names, Pronouns, and Records
California schools are required to address students by names and pronouns consistent with their gender identity, with or without a legal name change. The California Civil Rights Department has stated that “California law prohibits intentional misgendering” and has pursued enforcement on that basis.3California Civil Rights Department. Civil Rights Department Settles Gender Identity Investigation Repeated, intentional misgendering by staff is treated as gender identity discrimination under Section 220.
For paperwork, Education Code Section 49070 sets out how a student’s name and gender get updated in school files. When a parent or guardian requests the change, the school creates a new document in the student’s record showing the date of the request, the records that were updated, and any documentation provided. The parent does not have to supply proof of a legal name or gender change. The document generated during this process is kept confidentially and maintained indefinitely.4California Legislative Information. California Code EDC 49070 Records subject to update include campus ID cards, class rosters, and similar school-generated documents. Students who have already graduated can request reissued transcripts and similar records, though the exact process varies by district.
Parental Notification After Mirabelli
This is the piece of California law most actively in flux, and anyone reading only the state statutes will miss what has happened.
In July 2024, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1955, the SAFETY Act, which barred school districts from adopting policies requiring staff to notify parents when a student disclosed a transgender identity or asked to use a different name or pronouns at school. Several districts had adopted or were considering mandatory notification policies, and AB 1955 was aimed at blocking them statewide.
Then came Mirabelli v. Bonta. Parents challenged California’s broader approach of withholding gender identity information from them. A federal district court granted a permanent injunction in December 2025, finding the policies violated parents’ Fourteenth Amendment right to direct their children’s upbringing. The Ninth Circuit stayed that injunction, but on March 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the stay in a 6-3 decision, reinstating the district court’s injunction as to the parent plaintiffs.5Justia. Mirabelli v Bonta, 607 US ___ (2026)
The order means that, at least for the plaintiffs, schools cannot conceal information about a child’s gender presentation or social transitioning from parents, and schools must follow parents’ directions regarding their child’s names and pronouns. The Court said “gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health” and that California’s approach “conceal[s] that information from parents.”5Justia. Mirabelli v Bonta, 607 US ___ (2026)
The reach of the ruling is still unsettled. The Court noted the parents “must continue to litigate in the Ninth Circuit, and if necessary, this Court,” so the injunction may be modified or expanded as the case moves. AB 1955 was not directly at issue in Mirabelli, though it faces separate challenges. For now, California’s practice of keeping a student’s gender identity private from parents without the student’s consent is legally blocked for the families covered by the injunction, and the Court’s reasoning suggests broader application may follow. The result is a real conflict: state law still tells schools to protect student privacy here; a federal court tells them parents have a constitutional right to know. Any school that withholds this information from parents is now acting under legal risk that did not exist before 2026.
Student Record Privacy
Set aside the parental-notification fight, and California’s general student-record privacy rules are unchanged. Education Code Section 49076 prohibits school districts from releasing student records to any person without written parental consent or a court order, with limited exceptions.6California Legislative Information. California Code EDC 49076 Records reflecting a student’s gender identity history are student records and fall under this protection.
The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) adds another layer, generally requiring written consent before a school discloses personally identifiable information from student education records, with narrow exceptions for directory information, health emergencies, and transfers between schools.7Student Privacy Policy Office. 34 CFR Part 99 – Family Educational Rights and Privacy Staff who share a student’s gender identity information with unauthorized third parties risk violating both state and federal privacy law. One point worth flagging: FERPA gives parents the right to access their own child’s education records. Both FERPA and the Education Code were designed to prevent disclosure to outsiders, not to withhold information from parents of minor students. That is part of why California’s nondisclosure approach was legally vulnerable in Mirabelli.
Where Federal Title IX Stands
Readers often assume federal law is in the background on this. Right now, it isn’t. The U.S. Department of Education issued a Final Rule in April 2024 that expanded Title IX’s definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity and gender expression. In January 2025, a federal court in Tennessee v. Cardona vacated that Final Rule nationwide, holding that the Department exceeded its authority and that Bostock v. Clayton County (an employment case under Title VII) does not extend to Title IX in schools.
Title IX has reverted to its pre-2024 regulations. There is currently no federal requirement that schools treat gender identity as a protected category under Title IX. California’s state-level protections under Sections 220 and 221.5 are now carrying the weight federal law no longer does.
How to File a Complaint
If a student, parent, or staff member believes a school has violated these protections, the primary path under California law is the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP). Any person can file a written complaint with their school district alleging a violation of state or federal law, including gender identity discrimination.8Cornell Law Institute. California Code of Regulations Title 5 Section 4600
Once filed, the district must investigate and issue a written decision within 60 days. That deadline can be extended only with the complainant’s written agreement. The decision must include findings of fact, a determination of whether the district violated the law, and, if the complaint has merit, corrective actions with a remedy for affected students and parents.9Legal Information Institute. California Code of Regulations Title 5 Section 4631 A complainant unsatisfied with the district’s decision can appeal in writing to the California Department of Education within 30 days of receiving the investigation report.10Legal Information Institute. California Code of Regulations Title 5 Section 4632
The California Civil Rights Department also investigates discrimination complaints, but its direct authority over public schools is limited because a California Supreme Court decision has held public schools are not “business establishments” subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Students pursuing claims against public schools generally rely on Education Code violations and constitutional equal protection arguments. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights still accepts Title IX complaints, but given the vacatur of the 2024 Final Rule, its current position on gender identity claims is uncertain, and California’s state complaint process is the more reliable route.
Consequences for Districts and Staff
Districts that violate these protections can face corrective-action orders from the California Department of Education, and the CDE has authority to withhold state funding from a district that refuses to comply. Students can also sue under the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and under the Education Code itself, and successful cases can produce injunctions requiring policy changes, compensatory damages, and court-ordered staff training.
Individual educators have exposure too. Education Code Section 44421 authorizes the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to privately admonish, publicly reprove, revoke, or suspend the credential of any educator for “immoral or unprofessional conduct” or for “persistent defiance of, and refusal to obey, the laws regulating the duties of persons serving in the public school system.”11California Legislative Information. California Code EDC 44421 Deliberate, repeated violations of anti-discrimination law can fall under either ground, and a revoked credential stays revoked unless the Commission affirmatively reinstates it.12Commission on Teacher Credentialing. What Are Commission and Adverse Actions
The Mirabelli ruling has made the enforcement picture genuinely contradictory in one area. A staff member who follows California state law by keeping a student’s gender identity private from parents could now face a federal court injunction claim. A staff member who discloses that information without the student’s consent could face a state-law complaint. Until the courts finish working through Mirabelli and the related challenges to AB 1955, administrators and staff are navigating conflicting legal obligations, and districts that have not updated their policies and training to reflect that tension are exposed on one side or the other.