California has gone to federal court to stop what it calls an overreach by the U.S. Department of Education. In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Attorney General Rob Bonta accuses federal officials of exceeding their authority under FERPA while pressing schools for student records tied to gender identity and transgender status. The state says those demands collide with a new California law—Assembly Bill 1955—that forbids school staff from outing students to parents without the students’ consent.
What happened – The Department of Education, responding to complaints from an outside group, opened an inquiry and issued a list of six corrective actions. Federal investigators sought records and assurances about local districts’ parental-notification practices. – California counters that the federal interpretation of FERPA misstates the statute and would force disclosures that AB 1955 explicitly bars. The state lawsuit asks the court to declare the federal demands invalid and to block enforcement—seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions. – Officials on both sides have framed the dispute as a legal clash over the scope of FERPA and how it intersects with state privacy rules. No criminal charges are involved; the matter is administrative and constitutional.
What AB 1955 does Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in, AB 1955 applies to K–12 public schools in California. It prevents school employees from revealing a student’s gender identity, preferred name, or pronouns to parents when the student has not given explicit consent—unless state law otherwise requires disclosure. The statute is pitched as a safety measure for LGBTQ+ students who might face rejection or harm at home while preserving parents’ ability to obtain education records through proper FERPA channels.
The federal position Federal officials say some local education agencies may be withholding information in ways that violate FERPA, and they have asked districts to adopt what the Department described as “pro-parental notification” approaches. The Department’s demands, according to the state, would obligate schools to make affirmative disclosures that go beyond FERPA’s definition of “education records” and beyond what state law permits.
Stakes and immediate consequences – The Department warned that noncompliance could jeopardize federal education funding. California’s filing cites a potential loss of roughly $4.9 billion in annual federal aid—money that the state says would sharply reduce resources for schools across California. – The lawsuit seeks to block any federal action that conditions funding on compelled disclosures about students’ gender identity. – Beyond the dollar figure, the case raises practical concerns for districts trying to balance student safety, parental rights, and compliance with competing legal mandates.
Why the case matters At its core, the litigation asks who gets to decide what counts as an education record and whether federal authorities can effectively override a state law designed to protect vulnerable students. A broad federal reading of FERPA could require schools nationwide to change how they handle transgender students’ information. A narrow reading would reinforce state control over these privacy policies and limit federal intervention.
Reactions and broader implications Supporters of AB 1955 describe the law as a targeted, life‑preserving protection for students at risk of harm or family rejection. Critics argue parents have a fundamental right to know key facts about their children’s lives and welfare. Civil-rights groups, school administrators and state education officials are watching closely because the court’s decision could reshape how districts handle parental requests, record-keeping, and privacy safeguards going forward.
Next steps The case is active in the Northern District of California, and additional briefs and filings are expected from both sides. Judges will be asked to sort out conflicting statutory interpretations and determine whether federal requests can be enforced against a state law designed to limit disclosures. Whatever the outcome, the ruling is likely to ripple beyond California—affecting policy and practice in districts around the country. California seeks to protect students it says are at risk from forced disclosures, while the Department of Education insists on a broader reading of FERPA that it believes safeguards parental rights and statutory compliance. The court’s decision will clarify which voice prevails.