Primary Source: Legislative and Litigation Updates from California Justice Center 2/14/25 - 2/28/25

Mar 3

Lively filed an amended complaint on February 18. Despite suggesting multiple women would come forward with HR complaints against Baldoni, no new witnesses or complainants were named in the amended complaint, and no new evidence was offered.
Defendants New York Times, Vision PR and Leslie Sloan moved to dismiss the Baldoni/Wayfarer complaint.

At a press conference earlier this month, Attorney General Rob Bonta falsely declared victory against Chino Valley in its parental notification lawsuit.
In August 2023, the State of California sued Chino Valley to enjoin its parental notification policy.
In March of 2024, Chino Valley amended its notification policy to state that, regardless of subject matter, parents must be notified of any change to a student’s official or unofficial records.
The Court granted summary judgment on Chino’s old policy in September 2024. The State never challenged Chino’s existing policy, and the time to appeal the Court’s decision has now passed.
Accordingly, Chino Valley maintains a parental notification policy despite Bonta’s misrepresentations to the contrary.

Plaintiffs in the two cases allege that the University of California system discriminates based on race when admitting students by giving discriminatory preferences to non-Asian racial minorities.
Plaintiffs allege this practice allows applicants with inferior academic credentials to obtain admission at the expense of rejected candidates with better academic credentials.
Plaintiffs claim this discriminates against large numbers of Asian-American and white applicants, who are denied admission to UC schools based on their race.
Federal law prohibits universities that accept federal funds from discriminating on account of race (42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI); 42 U.S.C. § 1981). The UC system’s use of racial preferences in student admissions violates the clear and unequivocal text of Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin these discriminatory practices, and to ensure that the defendants comply with their obligations under federal anti-discrimination laws.

When AB 1955 (prohibiting mandatory notification of parents re: gender change at school) took effect in January, the California Department of Education took down its AB 1266 FAQ guidance.
The State then moved to dismissed the Mirabelli case, in which teachers and parents challenge the State’s directive to school personnel to lie to parents about their “gender identity” at school, claiming that the case is now moot because the AB 1266 guidance is not posted on the CDE website.
Lawyers for plaintiffs then deposed the State’s witness, who admitted that despite taking down the guidance, the State’s position remains what was stated in the AB 1266 guidance: that children have a constitutional right of privacy from their parents, and that school personnel cannot tell parents the truth about their children absent the child’s consent.
I discuss this update with Mirabelli attorney Paul Jonna on the Radio Free California podcast, beginning around 1:21:00.

Defense of Freedom Institute, California Justice Center File Federal Civil Rights Complaint Against California Department of Education and Multiple School Districts for Title IX Violations