Elon Musk, the entrepreneur, announced that he was moving his headquarters for X (formerly Twitter) and SpaceX to Texas as a response to the new law.

California parents and one school district have filed a federal lawsuit jointly against the state for its new policy that prohibits public schools from notifying parents about students’ requests to change their gender.

Elon Musk, the entrepreneur, announced that he was moving his headquarters for X (formerly Twitter) and SpaceX to Texas as a response to the new law.

Liberty Justice Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of Chino Valley Unified Schools District and several parents. The suit claims that the new state law, AB 1955 violates both the U.S. Constitution as well as federal records laws.

1776 Coalition Sponsored Will you join Elon, Vivek and Me? I want gov’t to work for the people, so I joined the DOGE Caucus. Now that Deep State, Establishment & Liberal spenders have a target on me. Fortunately, I’ve got allies like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy working with me in this mission. This is LTGen Jack Bergman. Please join me in the fight to make gov’t accountable to the citizens..

Chino Valley is the first California district to implement a policy on gender change notifications. The policy requires parents to be informed within three days of any incidents of violence, suicide talk, or requests for students to participate in or identify with programs or school facilities that do not match their birth certificate.

A preliminary injunction issued by a California state court partially upheld Chino’s policies and partially blocked them. This was due to a lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The district can continue to require notification when a student requests a change in any of their official or unofficial school records. The court ruled the clauses relating to requesting that a child be treated as another gender or be allowed to use sex-segregated activities, programs or facilities would be put on hold until the full trial. Chino updated their policy in March in order to reflect the injunction. This case is now in limbo, as both parties seek summary judgments regarding the case being moot under the new policy.

Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent for Public Instruction, sponsored and presented AB 1955 two months later. The bill quickly passed through the state legislature and was signed by the governor as a “law to end forced outings.”

LJC argues in its lawsuit that the state’s ban on the sale of tobacco products is unconstitutional and requires notification policies.

LJC reported that “transgender students and those who are gender nonconforming experience increased harassment, abuse and psychological distress, as well as an abnormally large number of suicidal feelings and suicide attempts”. The LJC wrote that “most PK-12 minors are too young for them to vote, drive or give medical consent, and they are also too old to make life-altering choices about their gender identity.”

LJC claims relief under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They claim that the state violates parents’ rights to make decisions about the care, custody and control of their child. LCJ also claims relief based on First Amendment concerns, claiming that the ban violates religious parents’ beliefs. And third, they claim relief based on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which says that schools receiving federal funds are required to guarantee parents access their student education records.

The Federal District Court may take several months to consider the case because AB 1955 does not contain an urgency clause and therefore, will not come into effect until January 1.