Newsom, Bonta Rebuked by Federal Judge for “Misleading” Court in Parental Rights Case
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is once again in the spotlight for taking public swipes at a federal judge—echoing the same style of personal attacks that once characterized Donald Trump’s clashes with the judiciary. But this time, the judge he’s criticized, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, just handed the Newsom administration a serious legal setback.
Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, issued an order directing California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the state Department of Education (CDE) to “show cause” why they should not be sanctioned for allegedly “misleading” the court. The issue centers on whether the state attempted to dodge accountability in a lawsuit challenging California’s controversial policies requiring school districts to withhold students’ gender identities from parents.
The case, brought by teachers represented by the Thomas More Society, claims the state and certain districts violated constitutional rights by silencing educators and excluding parents from key information about their children.
Judge Accuses State of Hiding Policy Behind “New Label”
According to Benitez’s order, state attorneys argued that the CDE had “withdrawn and conclusively replaced” an online FAQ page that contained the disputed guidance—thereby rendering the case moot. But evidence presented by plaintiffs suggested otherwise.
The judge noted that “the CDE may have merely moved the challenged content of the FAQ page to a new, required ‘PRISM’ training module,” citing documentation from the Thomas More Society. He ordered state officials to explain themselves in court on November 17.
“From day one, officials from the local school district all the way to the governor’s mansion have tried to deflect responsibility,” said Thomas More Society Executive Vice President Peter Breen. “They have now been caught not only lying to California taxpayers but attempting to mislead the Court to escape accountability.”
When asked for comment, Bonta’s office directed questions to its “client,” the Department of Education—despite Bonta’s name appearing on all court filings. The CDE did not respond to inquiries.
Court Expands Case as State Faces Growing Scrutiny
The sanction threat marks the latest in a string of losses for California officials. Judge Benitez has consistently sided with the plaintiffs, recently certifying a class action and four subclasses challenging what critics call the state’s “gender secrecy” policies. He has denied motions to dismiss from both the state and local school districts and has protected teachers from retaliation while the case proceeds.
Plaintiffs Say State Misrepresented Federal Law
In a recent motion for sanctions, the Thomas More Society pointed to a November 3 article from the California Family Council that detailed the PRISM training’s content—described as an “LGBTQ Loyalty Test.” The training, reportedly developed under the California Safe and Supportive Schools Act in consultation with groups such as the ACLU, Trevor Project, and California Teachers Association, instructs teachers that they cannot disclose a student’s LGBTQ status to anyone, including parents, without the student’s permission.
The training explicitly claims that even when a student openly identifies as transgender or nonbinary at school, they retain a “reasonable expectation of privacy” from their parents. Disclosure is allowed only in limited cases involving “safety or wellness.”
However, plaintiffs argue this directly misrepresents federal law—specifically the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)—which guarantees parents access to their child’s educational records. The motion notes that the CDE’s PRISM training falsely implies FERPA forbids disclosure to parents when, in reality, the opposite is true.
Alleged Effort to Evade Court Oversight
The plaintiffs also submitted evidence of another video showing Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond introducing the PRISM training, which repeats much of the same language as the removed FAQ.
According to the motion, state defendants refused to clarify key terms in discovery responses, such as what constitutes a “specific and compelling need to know” before disclosing a student’s gender identity to parents.
By quietly embedding the disputed policy within a new teacher training module—one that was difficult for plaintiffs to access but mandatory for all educators—the motion alleges the state attempted “an egregious effort to mislead the Court.”
Removing the FAQ page, it argues, left school districts “in a state of ambiguity,” while officials continued to tell them that parental exclusion policies were legally required.
Judge Benitez will consider both the sanctions motion and the parties’ competing summary judgment motions at a hearing scheduled for next week.