The U.S. Department of Education is pressing California and Washington to change their school policies on student gender identity records, arguing the states are violating federal privacy law by allowing or requiring schools to withhold information from parents. The conflict, now in its second year, has escalated from administrative letters to litigation and carries the threat of lost federal funding.
Two states, two investigations
The department’s Student Privacy Policy Office opened a FERPA investigation into California on March 27, 2025, after a complaint from a public interest law firm, the California Justice Center. The investigation targeted Assembly Bill 1955, which took effect January 1, 2025, and prohibits schools from adopting policies that would require notifying parents when a student changes their gender identity. The SPPO letter to California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond stated that the law purports to exempt records about a child’s gender identity from disclosure under FERPA absent the student’s consent, and asserted that federal law provides no such exemption. According to the SPPO, AB 1955 classifies providing education records about a child’s gender dysphoria to parents as outing the child to their parents.
A similar investigation into Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction opened on April 30, 2025. The department cited OSPI’s model Gender-Inclusive Schools policy, which directs schools to consult with the student about family involvement before contacting parents. The SPPO acknowledged that FERPA does not require schools to affirmatively notify parents of pronoun preferences, but said that if a district documents preferred pronouns or creates a gender support plan, FERPA gives parents the right to inspect and review those records.
Finding of violation and corrective demands
In January 2026, the department issued a formal finding that the California Department of Education was in continued violation of FERPA. The SPPO concluded that certain of CDE’s policies and practices pressure schools to adopt practices that result in FERPA noncompliance, including the use of separate filing systems for gender support plans meant to keep records from parents.
Required corrective actions for California include: issuing notice that gender support plans are education records subject to parental inspection; clarifying that there is no unofficial records exception to FERPA; having local education agencies certify compliance; allowing districts to enforce FERPA regarding gender identity data; and adding SPPO-approved FERPA training to California’s existing LGBTQ cultural competency training.
In July 2026, the department demanded that both California and Washington immediately detail their plans to revise policies in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2026 emergency order in Mirabelli v. Bonta, which found that parents were likely to succeed on their claim that parents, not the state, have primary authority over the upbringing and education of children, and the Ninth Circuit’s June 2026 ruling in City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom, which held that California laws forbidding schools from notifying parents about a child’s gender dysphoria likely violate parents’ constitutional rights.
State responses and litigation
California sued the U.S. Education Department in February 2026 over the clash, Education Week reported. Washington Superintendent Chris Reykdal criticized the July 2026 federal demand as lacking substance, saying that OSPI has provided extensive documentation to investigators over 15 months without receiving a meaningful response. He said that state law already gives parents access to their child’s school records and that Washington’s civil rights laws are consistent with federal requirements, according to the Seattle Times.
Washington has prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity since 2006 and has allowed students to participate in school athletics consistent with their gender identity since 2007, according to OSPI. The state’s Law Against Discrimination includes sex, gender identity, and gender expression as protected classes.
Legal framework and precedent
The SPPO’s investigation letter to California cites a 2002 Sixth Circuit case, United States v. Miami University, which held that FERPA operates like a contract: states agree to comply with federal conditions in return for federal funds. The court concluded the United States has the power to sue to enforce those conditions. That case provides the legal basis for withholding funds from noncompliant institutions.
California’s AB 1955, in contrast, was built on a different legal foundation. Its legislative analysis cited C.N. v. Wolf (2005) and Sterling v. Borough of Minersville (2000) for the proposition that outing a minor to their parents can violate the minor’s constitutional right to privacy, even if the minor is out at school or socially. These two lines of case law remain in tension and are now being tested by the recent Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit rulings.
Maine is also under federal investigation for similar state civil rights protections based on student gender identity, according to OSPI’s statement. Unlike California and Washington, Maine’s case has escalated to a federal lawsuit.
What the law says, and what is contested
A March 2025 Dear Colleague Letter from SPPO clarified that FERPA does not distinguish between a student’s official student record and a cumulative file, and that all records directly related to a student and maintained by an educational agency are education records subject to parental inspection. The letter stated that schools creating gender plans and asserting they are not education records because they are kept in separate files are misapplying FERPA. However, the letter also acknowledged that FERPA does not create an affirmative obligation for school officials to inform parents about any information. FERPA requires disclosure upon request but does not mandate proactive notification.
The SPPO’s finding that California’s policies amount to a violation is the department’s administrative determination. That finding is contested by the state: California argues its policies comply with federal law, and Washington’s superintendent contends that state civil rights laws are fully in compliance. The states’ position is that they are not violating FERPA, while the department maintains that the totality of California’s policies creates pressure that leads to noncompliance.
Enforcement options available to the department under FERPA include withholding further payments, issuing a cease and desist order, and recovering funds, under federal regulations. The SPPO initially set an April 11, 2025 deadline for California’s written response. A year later, the matter remains unresolved.