Aurora Regino v. Kelly Staley, et al.

Regino v. Staley · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 9, 2023 · No. 2:23-cv-00032-JAM-DMC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Aurora Regino’s motion for a preliminary injunction challenging Chico Unified School District Administrative Regulation 5145.3. The court concluded that Regino had not shown a likelihood of success on her facial substantive or procedural due process claims, and that her as-applied challenges were premature. Although the court found that the case raised serious questions concerning parental rights and a child’s gender identity and expression at school, it determined that the remaining preliminary-injunction factors did not favor relief.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success because she did not identify controlling authority establishing a constitutional right requiring the state to inform parents of a child's transgender identity or obtain parental consent before socially transitioning a transgender child at school.
  2. Plaintiff's as-applied challenges were premature because the allegations did not provide sufficiently concrete facts to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
  3. Plaintiff failed to establish that irreparable harm was likely and immediate in the absence of an injunction.
  4. The balance of equities favored Defendants, and Plaintiff did not show that the balance tipped sharply in her favor.
  5. Plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because she failed to satisfy the applicable preliminary-injunction factors.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on her facial substantive and procedural due process claims challenging Administrative Regulation 5145.3.
  2. Whether Plaintiff's as-applied due process challenges were sufficiently concrete to support preliminary injunctive relief.
  3. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated likely irreparable harm, a balance of equities sharply in her favor, and that an injunction would serve the public interest.
  4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring the school district to obtain parental informed consent before socially transitioning students.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (18)

  • Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1094 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n., 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22, 24 (2008)(followed)
  • Boardman v. Pacific Seafood Group, 822 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979)(distinguished)
  • John & Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149021 (D. Md. Aug. 18, 2022)(considered)
  • Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…