Appeals court SLAPS DOWN California on parental rights and trans-identifying students



The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction Friday against a California law that allowed children to hide their transgender status from their parents.

The law required teachers and others to withhold information from parents related to their children identifying as transgender or asking to be called by a different name.

'The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection.'

The three-judge panel initially rejected the lawsuit from residents of Huntington Beach but relented after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a similar case on the side of parental rights.

The appeals court recognized that the law would likely violate parents' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

America First Legal, the organization that represents the parents, called the ruling a major victory in a statement on its website.

"California cannot use state law to force schoolteachers and administrators into a conspiracy of silence against parents," AFL senior counsel Nick Barry said. "California's law, and similar school policies, use state coercion to intentionally interfere with the parent-child relationship and separate a child from their parent. That is wrong and unlawful."

AFL added that the state of California "sought to prevent parents from obtaining information about 'gender transitions' of their own children without the child's consent."

Proponents of these types of laws say they are necessary to protect children who may have feelings that would lead them to identify as transgender from parents who may oppose their wishes. Critics say cutting out parents puts children at risk of grooming and abuse by far-left teachers and other school officials.

RELATED: Supreme Court sides with Catholic parents against California on student gender notification — for now

"The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection," Barry continued.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has not commented on the ruling yet.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Federal Court Tries To Force States To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws

A federal court just neutered much of the authority states have to check unconstitutional federal laws. Its decision must be overturned.

If The Judges In RFK’s Censorship Case Were Really Liberal, They’d Defend Free Speech

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Screenshot-2024-05-22-at-2.17.40 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Screenshot-2024-05-22-at-2.17.40%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]In their zeal to protect Democrat politicians, judges are destroying the progress made by their predecessors.

Cities Turn To Supreme Court To Weigh In On Clearing Homeless Camps

'Massive infusions of public resources'

Biden Admin Plans To Raze Native American Religious Site To Benefit Foreign Mining Group

A group of Apache sued the government, arguing that the destruction of their worship site violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Federal Court Determines Section 230 ‘Is Not License To Do Whatever One Wants Online’

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just fixed 230(c)(1), creating a conflict with the Ninth Circuit Court. Will the Supreme Court finally address the breadth of Big Tech immunity?

‘I Don’t Believe You’ — Sen. Kennedy Rattles Biden Nominee Over Past Letter Calling Kavanaugh ‘Morally Bankrupt’

'Lack of judicial temperament and judgment'

USA Today actually fact-checked a satire piece about RBG's death being 'overturned'



Nothing gets by the fact-checkers at USA Today.

In a fact-check article posted Sunday, USA Today writer Chelsey Cox and other staffers unironically determined a story published by the Babylon Bee, a well-known satire site, to be — you guessed it — "satire."

What are the details?

The Babylon Bee story, titled Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg," jokingly suggested that the historically liberal Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruled the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death unconstitutional in attempt to block President Donald Trump from nominating a conservative replacement.

Ginsburg died earlier this month due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg https://t.co/ow4Scn2GQr
— The Babylon Bee (@The Babylon Bee)1601244033.0

The satirical article quipped that Trump slammed the ruling as "idiotic" and called the judges "a bunch of morons."

Justice Kim McLane Wardlaw, in an obviously fake response, vowed to "block any attempt [to replace RBG] until we figure out a way to resurrect her or maybe clone her and restore her to her already 'legally alive' state. We're still figuring that part out."

The story should have been an obvious joke to anyone who read it, especially considering that the Bee advertises itself with the Twitter slogan, "Fake news you can trust." USA Today appeared to acknowledge as much: "The Babylon Bee is 'the world's best satire site,' according to its website," the report said.

Yet instead of laughing if off and going about their day, USA Today fact-checkers decided to forge on and submit a lengthy rebuttal to the story.

They actually checked the records

They even went so far as to check the Ninth Circuit's website for past rulings about Ginsburg's death. To no one's surprise, there aren't any.

"There is no record of any Wardlaw opinion on Ginsburg's death on the website for the 9th Circuit, but she participated in a panel discussion Friday about Ginsburg's life produced by the UCLA School of Law," Cox wrote. "There was no mention of 'reviving' Ginsburg during the discussion."

The report went on to note at length the history of the West Coast-based court's opposition to Trump before finally delivering its determination.

"We rate this claim SATIRE, based on our research," the fact-check concluded. "A satirical article about the 9th Circuit 'overturning' Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death has no basis in fact. It is true that the 9th Circuit has ruled against many Trump-era policies."

The news outlet cited a whopping 15 trusted sources to support its determination. The fact-checkers could have saved precious time, however, if they would've just read the Bee's bio and moved on.