Full Breakdown
Ninth Circuit Blocks Enforcement of California’s SAFETY Act for Parents
6/25/2026, 12:42:28 AM
Core Event
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction, stopping California officials from enforcing Sections 5 and 6 of Assembly Bill 1955 (the SAFETY Act) against parents who sued in City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom. The order applies only to the plaintiffs and does not suspend law statewide.
Legislative Background
Assembly Bill 1955, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in July 2024, bars schools from requiring staff to disclose a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without consent and protects employees from retaliation for supporting LGBTQ+ students. Measure entered a debate over policies that compel parental notification when students use names or pronouns differing from their assigned sex.
Principal Parties
Governor Gavin Newsom, Equality California (Executive Director Tony Hoang), America First Legal representing the parents, Liberty Justice Center (Senior Counsel Timothy Snowball), and federal courts—the Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs are Huntington Beach parents challenging the law’s application to their children.
Judicial Reasoning
The Ninth Circuit relied on Supreme Court’s March decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta, which found parents “likely to succeed on the merits” of First Amendment Free Exercise and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims, and said they would suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief.
Official Statements & Responses
Equality California’s Tony Hoang said the law strengthens LGBTQ+ youth protections, gives families resources to discuss gender identity on their own terms, and shields teachers from retaliation. Liberty Justice Center’s Timothy Snowball argued measure infringes parents’ constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing and blocks families from obtaining health and education information.
Criticism & Opposition
Opponents, through America First Legal and Liberty Justice Center, contend AB 1955 curtails parental authority and transparency, asserting a legal and moral right to be informed about a child’s gender-related health and schooling.
Verbatim Quotes
- “This critical legislation will strengthen protections for LGBTQ+ youth against forced outing policies, provide resources for parents and families of LGBTQ+ students to support them as they have conversations on their own terms, and provide critical safeguards to prevent retaliation against teachers and school staff who foster a safe and supportive school environment for all students,” — Tony Hoang, Executive Director, Equality California
- “It’s far past time for California officials and school districts to realize they can’t legally use our kids to conduct gender transition experiments at school,” — Timothy Snowball, Senior Counsel, Liberty Justice Center
- “There, the justices said parents challenging California’s student confidentiality policies were “likely to succeed on the merits” of claims under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” — U.S. Supreme Court (Mirabelli v. Bonta)
- “The appellate panel concluded that the parents were likely to prevail and would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.” — Ninth Circuit opinion (City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom)
What’s Next
The injunction remains limited to the Huntington Beach plaintiffs while underlying lawsuit proceeds. The Supreme Court’s lift of a stay allows the lower-court order to take effect, and California may seek further appellate review.
