Bureau of Children's Justice

Inequities in school discipline have a major impact on student success. Decades of research consistently show that suspensions and expulsions significantly increase the possibility that a student may later drop out of school or be involved in the juvenile justice system. In California, students of color, particularly Black students, are far more likely to be disciplined, suspended, and expelled. In 2021, 19,355 juvenile arrests were made in California, contributing to the school to prison pipeline. The presence of campus police officers are associated with a decrease in high school graduation and college enrollment rates.

It is unlawful for school districts to have policies, procedures and practices that treat students in a different and harmful way based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status or economic status.
BCJ has investigated school districts and filed amicus briefs to ensure equal treatment of all California students. BCJ also publishes guidance for local education agencies.

Investigations

Oroville City Elementary School District
In 2019, BCJ opened an investigation into the Oroville City Elementary School District (OCESD) after data revealed that OCESD had suspended nearly a third of its African-American male students and that it had suspended students with disabilities at five times the statewide average rate.

The investigation uncovered that OCESD had systematically over-disciplined Black students, Native American students, and students with disabilities in violation of civil rights laws and various special education laws. The district agreed to be overseen by an independent monitor to ensure that all OCESD students are treated equally in a safe environment conducive to learning.
On August 25, 2020, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with OCESD to remedy its discriminatory treatment of students based on race and disability. The judgment requires OCESD to, among other reforms, revise its board policies and administrative regulations to comply with state law; implement a culturally responsive positive behavior intervention system; engage in ongoing measures to address the root causes of discrimination in discipline; and effectively and consistently implement accommodations, referrals for special education evaluation, and Functional Behavior Assessments.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgement

Oroville Union High School District
In 2019, BCJ opened an investigation into Oroville Union High School District (OUHSD)'s discipline practices after data revealed that OUHSD had the highest rate of suspensions for Black students statewide. In 2020, after a comprehensive investigation, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with the district to address discriminatory discipline against Black students and students with disabilities and a failure to comply with various special education and discipline laws.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgement

Barstow Unified School District
In 2020, after a comprehensive investigation, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with the Barstow Unified School District (BUSD) to address discriminatory treatment of students based on race and disability. The year-long investigation uncovered systemic over-reliance on punitive, exclusionary discipline against Black students and students with disabilities. BUSD's own data showed that Black students and students with disabilities were significantly more likely to be punished and suspended than their peers. Black students were punished for 168 percent more days than their white peers.

The judgment requires, among other things, revisions to policies and practices on student discipline; more mental health, counseling, and social work services; a district-wide multi-tiered system of supports; and quarterly reports to DOJ on complaints and responses to complaints.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgment

Stockton Unified School District
In 2019, after a comprehensive investigation, BCJ entered into court-approved stipulated judgment with Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) and its police department to remedy systemic violations of the civil rights of African-American and Latino students and students with disabilities. BCJ found that SUSD had conducted unconstitutional search and seizure practices and that SUSD's law enforcement referrals policies and practices discriminated against Black and Latino students and students with disabilities. SUSD systemically criminalized students for minor misconduct, which can result in long-term harms. The five-year stipulated judgment includes revised policies and procedures for law enforcement referrals, treatment of students with disabilities, mental health referrals and use of force; creation of a formal diversion program to address minor school-based criminal offenses, aimed at minimizing arrest citations and bookings; hiring of a trained Disability Coordinator at the police department to ensure compliance with disability discrimination laws; crisis intervention training for all police officers; and creation of a community advisory committee.

BCJ ended monitoring of SUSD in April 2024, concluding the five-year judgment term. SUSD will implement a plan to further reduce disproportionalities in law enforcement referrals through school year 2026-2027. The plan aims to institutionalize reformed policies and practices and continue the progress made under the judgment.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgment

Comment Letters and Amicus Briefs

• Natomas Unified School District v. Sacramento County Board of Education (2022) Our amicus brief urged the court to overturn an unlawful expulsion of an elementary school student and outlined students' right to due process when facing expulsion from their public school. Students have a constitutional right to an education and equal opportunity, and BCJ argued that mandatory expulsions should be reserved for students who pose the greatest threat to safety.

Guidance

February 4, 2019 Letter Reminding Schools Obligations Re Discrimination in School Discipline
The guidance letter highlighted state and federal laws that protect students from discriminatory and excessive discipline. The letter reminded school districts that decades of research has consistently shown that students subject to out-of-school disciplinary removals suffer significant adverse impacts, including decreased educational achievement and a significantly higher likelihood of arrest, school dropout, and juvenile justice involvement. The letter also discussed effective, research-based alternatives to out-of-school suspensions and encouraged individuals with information about potentially unlawful discipline practices to contact the Bureau.

California is home to millions of immigrant children and youth, and protecting their rights is a crucial component of BCJ's work. 27% of Californian residents are immigrants. 46% of Californian children have at least one immigrant parent. 20% of Californian children, of whom 93% are U.S. citizens, live in mixed-status families. All Californians, including children, are protected against discrimination and harassment based on immigration status, race, ancestry, and national origin, among other characteristics.

BCJ engages in investigations; files litigation, amicus briefs, and comment letters; and publishes legal guidance to protect immigrant children, youth, and families.

Investigations

Mojave Unified School District
In 2020, BCJ entered into court-approved stipulated judgment with the Mojave Unified School District (MUSD) to remedy shortfalls in MUSD's discrimination and retaliation policies and practices.

BCJ's investigation found that MUSD had no legally compliant procedure for responding to complaints of discrimination and retaliation. MUSD did not investigate allegations of retaliation, including one in which a parent complained that the school had discriminated against their child and the school's principal threatened immigration consequences against the parent's employer in retaliation. BCJ's investigation also found deficiencies under state law in MUSD's independent study and supervised suspension programs, search and seizure practices, special education evaluation and alternative placement into county community schools, and student record confidentiality training and protocols.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgement

BCJ ended monitoring of MUSD in May 2024, concluding the five-year judgment term. SUSD will implement a plan to further reduce disproportionalities in law enforcement referrals through school year 2026-2027. The plan aims to institutionalize reformed policies and practices and continue the progress made under the judgment.

Suspension Disproportionality Reduction Plan

Litigation

Flores Regulations Litigation
The 1985 lawsuit Flores v. Reno resulted in the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement, which established minimum standards for the treatment, placement and release of unaccompanied immigrant children. In 2019, the Attorney General, through BCJ, led a multistate lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the Trump Administration's attempts to circumvent the Flores Settlement Agreement. In 2024, under the Biden Administration, HHS expanded the critical protections for unaccompanied children under the Flores Settlement Agreement, and adopted the multistate coalition's suggested language regarding licensing requirements for facilities housing unaccompanied children. As a result, BCJ, along with the 18 other states, filed a stipulation to dismiss the multistate lawsuit against HHS.

Stipulation to Dismiss
Order Granting Stipulation to Dismiss

DHS et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al. (DACA Litigation)
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy allows hundreds of thousands of individuals brought to this country as children to legally remain and work in the United States. In January 2018, BCJ—alongside partners representing the University of California, individual DACA recipients, local governments, and labor unions—secured the first nationwide preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration's efforts to rescind DACA. After appeals, in June 2020, BCJ led a coalition of 21 attorneys general and numerous other plaintiffs and secured a landmark ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court that the Trump Administration acted illegally when it attempted to end DACA. As a result, the policy remains in effect, protecting hundreds of thousands of Dreamers in California and across the country.

BCJ continues to work to defend DACA, including co-leading amicus briefs in litigation in Texas district and appellate courts and comment letters supporting federal rulemaking actions enshrining the DACA program into regulations and increasing DACA recipients' access to health insurance.

California v. McAleenan
In 2019, BCJ led a multistate coalition and filed California v. McAleenan, challenging the Trump Administration's proposed regulation on the care of children in federal immigration custody. The proposed rule would have eliminated critical protections guaranteed by court order in the landmark Flores v. Reno case and permitted prolonged, indefinite detention of children and their families. This detention would have caused irreparable harm to children, their families, and the California communities that accept them upon their release from federal custody.

Complaint

On July 20, 2023, the district court granted the parties' stipulated dismissal. Through the stipulated dismissal, DHS agreed to create policy guidance ensuring that regulatory requirements are treated as mandatory, and that children in the custody of CBP are afforded safe and sanitary conditions and are processed as expeditiously as possible. The settlement terms provide that the policy will be disseminated within 30 days and incorporated into trainings of CBP personnel.

Washington v. United States of America
In 2018, BCJ co-led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit, Washington v. United States of America, against the Trump Administration over the cruel and unlawful policy of forcibly separating children from their parents without any legitimate justification. The complaint alleged that the Trump Administration's family separation policy violated the fundamental due process rights of parents to be together with their children, equal protection rights afforded to parents and their children, as well as other constitutional and statutory claims. This case was voluntarily dismissed when the Biden Administration rescinded the policy.

Complaint

Comment Letters and Amicus Briefs

Protecting Unaccompanied Immigrant Children

• Comment letter (2023) in response to the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule, issued as a result of the long-running Flores litigation. Our office supports the provisions of the rule which enhance protections for unaccompanied immigrant children, but urges HHS to better protect unaccompanied children placed in unlicensed facilities.
• J.E.F.M. v. Lynch (2016) amicus brief argued that every unaccompanied minor placed in immigration proceedings is guaranteed a right to counsel. A proceeding cannot be fair "where an experienced lawyer represents the federal government and an indigent child has no lawyer at all."
• In re Denis G. (2017) amicus briefdiscussed the role that California state courts play in making child welfare decisions as part of the SIJS process and emphasizes the importance of ensuring children can pursue valid claims.
• Comment letter (2018) expressing significant concern that proposed Flores regulations would roll back critical protections for children in immigration detention facilities, as well as undermining the states' power to license children's residential facilities. The Attorney General called attention to the significant harm that undoing these protections would cause immigrant children in California and across the nation.
• Comment letter (2019) calling on the Trump Administration to overhaul a proposed rule regarding Special Immigrant Juvenile Petitions which risked inflicting additional trauma on thousands of already vulnerable children. The proposal threatened to undercut protections that have existed for decades, creating new layers of red tape that are not only duplicative of existing state functions in many respects but also increase the burden on children.
• Comment letter (2019) to a proposal for a federal licensing regime for facilities providing care to unaccompanied children. The proposal risked lowering standards of care for children, intruded on traditional areas of state sovereignty and expertise, and risked conflict between federal and state licensing regimes.

Preventing Family Separation

• Comment letter (2018) demanding the U.S. Department of Justice immediately end its "zero tolerance" immigration policy, which separated children from their parents. These compulsory separations created serious concerns regarding the violation of children's rights and constitutional due process and equal protection principles.

Legal Guidance

Safe Schools for Immigrant Students (AB 699)

AB 699 was passed to address the fear and confusion expressed by school officials in the wake of the Trump Administration's immigration enforcement-related activities and anti-immigrant rhetoric. BCJ created the following Guidance and check list for school administrators, students, and families when interacting with officers who are enforcing immigration laws. BCJ updated the Guidance and Model Policies documents in January 2025.

• December 2024 Promoting a Safe and Secure Learning Environment for All: Guidance and Model Policies to Assist California's K-12 Schools in Responding to Immigration Issues
• December 2024 Promoting a Safe and Secure Campus for All: Guidance and Model Policies to Assist California's Colleges and Universities in Responding to Immigration Issues
• Quick Reference for School Officials (English) (Spanish)
• Guide for Students and Families: Immigration-Enforcement Actions at California Schools (English) (Spanish)
• Student and Family Checklist (English)
• Spanish
• Traditional Chinese
• Vietnamese
• Korean
• Tagalog
• Arabic

In 2019, 4,131 youths were confined in California's juvenile facilities. This includes youths who have already been determined to have committed an offense, but also youths who have not yet been adjudicated. Incarceration can lead to depression, self-harm and suicide. Incarcerated youth are more likely to drop out and suffer losses in math and reading. Juvenile incarceration leads to higher rates of rearrest, higher rates of criminal justice involvement as an adult, and poor adult health outcomes.

BCJ engages in investigations and enforcement actions, and publishes comment letters to protect youth in juvenile detention.

Investigations

County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Office of Education
After a comprehensive investigation, in 2021, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Office of Education to improve the county's juvenile halls. The investigation found significant deficiencies in the conditions of confinement in Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall and Central Juvenile Hall, endangering youth safety and denying youth legally required services, including education. The County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Office of Education agreed to a wide range of corrective actions to be overseen by an independent monitor and subject matter experts.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgement with County of Los Angeles
Stipulated Judgement with the Los Angeles County Office of Education

Due to the County's ongoing lack of compliance with the Judgment, BCJ brought an enforcement action against the County due to ongoing illegal and unsafe conditions at the juvenile halls. The Court granted BCJ's motion, finding that the County had failed to provide adequate staffing, timely and adequate medical care, education, compensatory education, outdoor recreation, adequate video cameras, a positive behavior management plan, or timely use of force review.

Motion to enforce judgment
Order to Enforce Judgment

The County did not meet the Court's deadlines to comply with the 2021 Judgment. In November 2023, the County agreed to additional terms to remedy its continued noncompliance, including: (1) a plan approved by the Judgment's monitor to resolve a juvenile hall staffing crisis; (2) fully staffing a team to audit compliance in real-time; (3) a de-escalation model approved by the monitor to respond to conflicts between youth; (4) an electronic system to help ensure youth receive programming, recreation, outdoor exercise, religious services, and visitation; and (5) engaging a transportation provider to bring youth to off-site medical appointments.

Order For Additional Terms

On November 21, 2024, following monitoring reports showing that conditions were deteriorating at the juvenile halls and subsequent negotiations with the County, BCJ moved ex parte to amend the stipulated judgment. The Superior Court granted the request to amend. The amendments to the stipulation judgment require changes and training to address youth safety and access to services and the staffing crisis, and to prevent retaliation, improve child abuse report, and address unsafe conditions, while strengthening monitoring and reporting requirements.

Comment Letters

• Comment letter (2023) to the Board of State and Community Corrections highlighted areas for commonsense reform for safe and supportive conditions for youth in juvenile detention.

5.8 million K-12 students attend over 10,000 public schools in California, and over 600,000 students attend over 1,200 charter schools. All California children deserve the best and most equitable education opportunities.

BCJ engages in investigations, and files litigation, amicus briefs, and comment letters to ensure that all California students can thrive in high-performing schools.

Investigations

K12 Inc. and California Virtual Academies
In 2016, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with K12 Inc., a for-profit online charter school operator, and its 14 affiliated non-profit schools, the California Virtual Academies ("CAVA Schools"). After a comprehensive investigation, BCJ found that K12 and the CAVA Schools published misleading advertisements and submitted inflated student attendance numbers to collect more state funding. K12 and its employees influenced nonprofit online charter schools to enter into unfavorable contracts that put them deep in a financial hole.

As part of the settlement K12 provided approximately $160 million in debt relief to the non-profit schools it manages and paid $8.5 million in settlement of all claims. In addition, K12 agreed to implement significant reforms to ensure that K12 and the CAVA Schools refocus on the need to deliver quality educational services and that they do so with appropriate controls between the for-profit vendor and nonprofit schools.

Stipulated Judgment
Complaint

PresenceLearning
In 2021, the Attorney General entered into a stipulated judgment with PresenceLearning, an online for-profit provider of speech and occupational therapy, behavioral and mental health services, and assessments for special education students. After a comprehensive investigation, BCJ found that the company engaged in false advertising and misrepresentations regarding its services over a period of several years. In addition to a court order prohibiting such practices, the settlement requires PresenceLearning to submit to a thorough expert review of its services and to pay $600,000. PresenceLearning operates nationwide with over 100 different schools and more than 4,000 students in California alone.

Stipulated Judgment
Complaint

Litigation

State of New York, et al. v. U.S. Department of Education
On April 25, 2025, the State of California co-led a coalition of 18 states in suing the U.S. Department of Education over its April 3, 2025 certification demand to state and local education agencies that they adopt the Trump Administration’s interpretation of Title VI and its implementing regulation in a sharp break from decades of precedent. The federal government’s order requires state agencies to certify that they do not employ “certain” or so-called undefined “illegal DEI” programs or risk loss of federal funding, which amounts to roughly $8 billion in California. The lawsuit asserts federal constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act claims and seeks declaratory relief and an injunction barring defendants from implementing their April 3, 2025 certification demand or any similar measure on public education agencies in Plaintiffs’ States.

Michigan v. Betsy Devos
In 2020, BCJ co-led a successful multistate effort to enjoin the Trump Administration's unlawful attempt to siphon pandemic relief funds to private schools and away from K-12 public schools. Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), California public schools were slated to receive $2 billion. While the CARES Act provided local authorities with critical flexibility in using these resources, it also established that private schools are only eligible for funds in certain circumstances in line with established criteria under federal law, which the Trump Administration unlawfully attempted to circumvent.

Complaint
Order Granting Injunction

New York et. al, v. USDA et. al
BCJ worked with a multistate coalition to ensure that federal school meal nutrition rules are based on the best health science. BCJ has joined in litigation opposing rule changes that could reduce the variety of vegetables served, increase the amount of sodium in meals, and decrease the amount of whole grains served.

Complaint

State of California, et al. v. U.S. Department of Education
On March 10, 2025, a Massachusetts District Court granted our request for a temporary restraining order against the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) across-the-board termination of teacher preparation grants. This immediately restored previously-awarded federal grants for critical teacher development programs in California and seven other plaintiff states – Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin. The court found that the plaintiff states were likely to succeed on claims that the grant terminations were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, violating administrative law, among other things, failing to provide a rational explanation for cancelling the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs. These program, which provide tens of millions in grant funding to Plaintiff States, are crucial for addressing the state and nationwide teacher shortages, particularly in subject areas like math and science and bilingual, and special education.

Temporary Restraining Order

Comment Letters

School Meals Healthfulness Standards

• Comment Letter (2020) expressed serious concerns with the Trump Administration's proposal to significantly reduce existing standards for healthy vegetables, fruits, and whole grains in school meals. The proposed USDA rule would have created loopholes that favor high sodium foods like pizza, french fries, and burgers and ran counter to evidence from a national study the USDA itself published.
• Comment Letter (2023) supported the USDA's goal of establishing nutritious school meal standards, but urges the USDA to expand and strengthen the guidance to encourage healthier and medically sensitive standards for children's meals in schools. The letter recommends further aligning the sodium content in school meals with dietary guidelines and improving access to milk substitution for children with dairy allergies and lactose intolerance."

California's history of segregated schools and neighborhoods continues to impact California's children today. As of 2020, California remained in the top 10 most segregated states for Black students. With active and strategic planning, transparent and inclusive community engagement, and a focus on addressing California's history of unequal education, our school districts can avoid repeating the harms of the past to build better, more equitable educational opportunities for all students.

BCJ engages in investigations, files amicus briefs and comment letters, and issues guidance to ensure that all children and youth are provided equal educational opportunity.

Investigations

Protecting Against Discrimination in School Closure Decisions
In 2022, BCJ investigated Oakland Unified School District Board of Education's February 8, 2022 decision to close several schools. Although OUSD rescinded some of the planned closures in January 2023, BCJ issued a letter to OUSD stating that based on its analysis of public data, the February 2022 closure decision would have disproportionately impacted Black and low-income elementary students, as well as high-need students with disabilities. The letter also outlines significant concerns about several metrics OUSD had announced that it might rely on to determine future closures.

BCJ also issued a statewide Guidance Regarding Laws Governing School Closures and Best Practices for Implementation in California to clarify school districts' legal obligations and present best practices for all California school districts considering closures, including establishing a robust community engagement process.

Sausalito Marin City School District
In 2019, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with Sausalito Marin City School District after a comprehensive investigation found that the District intentionally under-resourced and segregated the predominately minority Bayside Martin Luther King Jr. Academy. The discriminatory treatment was the direct result of decisions made by the former Board of Trustees. These actions included intentional racial and ethnic segregation of schools within the District; termination of math, science, and English programs at Bayside MLK; and funding decisions that failed to deliver promised resources to Bayside MLK.

The District entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment agreement with the Attorney General's Office. Starting in August 2021, public school students in the District are educated in a unified education program. Pursuant to the settlement, the District has and will continue to provide scholarships for affected students until 2029.

Stipulated Judgment
Complaint

Amicus Briefs and Comment Letters

• Mae M. v. Joseph Komrosky et al. (2023) amicus brief in the California Court of Appeal supporting student and teacher plaintiffs challenging Temecula Valley Unified School District Board's policies banning teaching on Critical Race Theory, including historical documents that discuss slavery and oppression. The amicus brief also explains why the district's forced outing policy violates state anti-discrimination and equal protection requirements because it singles out transgender students, by requiring district staff to notify parents of a student's request to use a different name or pronoun, even when such notification places them at risk of physical, emotional, and psychological harm.
• Boston Parent Coalition v. School Committee of the City of Boston (2022) amicus brief supported the School Committee of the City of Boston's defense of its efforts to encourage a diverse student body in its most high-achieving and competitive public schools. The amicus brief argued that such race-neutral means of increasing access and diversity have been explicitly endorsed by the Supreme Court and utilized within states including California.
• Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board (2022) amicus brief supported efforts to encourage a diverse student body in Fairfax County's most high-achieving and competitive public schools. The amicus brief argued that strict scrutiny does not apply to race-neutral means of increasing diversity, and notes that such policy changes have been explicitly endorsed by the Supreme Court and used within states including California.
• Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2022) amicus brief supported Harvard's use of race-conscious admissions policies to further diversity in higher education. In California and other states, race-neutral admissions policies have caused some colleges and universities to struggle to provide their students with the educational benefits that flow from a meaningfully diverse student body.

Legal Guidance

January 9, 2024 Guidance to School Officials re: Legal Requirements for Providing Inclusive Curricula and Books
BCJ issued a legal alert to all California county offices of education, school district, and charter school boards and superintendents emphasizing their obligation to provide inclusive curricula in public K-12 schools. The legal alert addresses the responsibilities of local educational agencies related to two recently enacted laws. AB 1078 expands the right to inclusive curricula and books and strengthens the mechanisms for enforcing the right. AB 101 mandates that anticipates that, beginning with the class of 2030, all public high school students will complete an ethnic studies course in order to graduate.

April 11, 2023 Guidance Regarding Laws Governing School Closures and Best Practices for Implementation in California
This statewide guidance outlines school districts' legal obligations and best practices when considering school closures, including mergers and consolidations. School districts that follow the guidance will take a step towards providing equal educational opportunity to all students, and begin to remedy the continuing harms of segregation. The guidance also describes measures to improve community trust and parent engagement and reduce a district's legal risk before, during, and after the closure selection process.

Many LGBTQ students in California face serious problems at school, and one of BCJ's priorities is to defend their rights. Most LGBTQ students experienced victimization and 45% experienced discrimination in California schools. Compared to their non-LGBTQ peers, LGBTQ students report much higher rates of depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol use and suicide. Federal reports find that LGBTQ youth were almost twice as likely to be bullied and threatened or injured by a weapon at school; almost twice as likely to be in a physical fight; and were more likely to be offered, sold, or given illegal drugs at school.

BCJ engages has filed litigation, amicus briefs, and comment letters to protect the rights of LGBTQ students.

Litigation

The People of the State of California vs. Chino Valley Unified School District
BCJ filed a lawsuit on August 28, 2023 against Chino Valley Unified School District challenging CVUSD's policy that forces district staff to notify parents, with minimal exceptions, whenever they become aware that a student has requested to use a name or pronoun different from, or to access facilities or participates in programs that do not align with the sex listed on their birth certificate or official records. District staff notified parents even against the student's wishes and even when it puts them at risk of harm. The forced outing policy has no exception for when a student is at risk of physical, emotional, or psychological harm. And, discriminatory school policies, like the forced outing, have been shown to increase transgender and gender nonconforming students' risk of self-harm and suicide. The Superior Court granted BCJ's request for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction during the legal proceedings, and issued its final ruling on September 9, 2024, granting BCJ's motion for summary adjudication. The Court permanently enjoined CVUSD's forced outing policy and also declared that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of California's Constitution, Education Code section 220, and Government section 11135 by discriminating against transgender and gender nonconforming students.

Complaint
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Court Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order
Final Court Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment

Comment Letters and Amicus Briefs

• California joined a multistate amicus brief led by Maryland and Massachusetts in the Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor. This case involves a challenge to the Montgomery County Board of Education’s inclusion of LGBTQ-inclusive books in language arts curricula without allowing parents to opt their children out. The multistate amicus brief supported the school board, arguing that state and local governments have broad discretion in how they educate students, which includes policies designed to protect LGBTQ students from harm, and that the petitioners have not established a constitutional burden on their religious exercise at this preliminary phase of the litigation.
• Regino v. Stanley et al. (2024) amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of Chico Unified School District (CUSD) and its local school district policy safeguarding the privacy and safety of transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

Preventing Hate Crimes

• Comment letter (2018) supporting the collection of data related to violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ) youth. The confidential, voluntary survey is an important source of national data on violence against LGBTQ youth and a critical tool to learn whether crimes are being reported and how the criminal justice system is responding to young LGBTQ victims.

Rights of Transgender Youth

• Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education (2024) amicus brief supporting the Plaintiff student's challenge of Oklahoma's Senate Bill 615 (SB 615), which prohibits transgender students from using school facilities consistent with their gender identity.
• Foote v. Ludlow School Committee (2023) amicus brief supporting the Ludlow School Committee against parents challenging Ludlow's policy of protecting the privacy, well-being, and safety of transgender students by declining to unnecessarily disclose information on a student's gender identity without the student's permission.
• Mae M. v. Joseph Komrosky et al. (2023) amicus brief supporting plaintiffs challenging Temecula Valley Unified School District Board's policies forcing district staff to notify parents, with minimal exceptions, of a student's request to use a different name or pronoun. The brief also supports plaintiffs' challenge of Temecula's ban on teaching Critical Race Theory. On May 19, 2025 the Court of Appeal ordered the Superior Court to grant a preliminary injunction against TVUSD’s curriculum ban, finding the curriculum ban unconstitutionally vague because it “is ambiguous, lacks clear definitions, is unclear in scope, is seemingly irreconcilable with state-mandated educational requirements, and contains no enforcement guidelines.” The Court of Appeal’s opinion recognized that the curriculum resolution was dramatically overbroad, including provisions that could be construed to prohibit instruction or discussion about discriminatory Jim Crow laws, segregation, racial inequalities in the criminal justice system, and the civil rights movement. The challenge to TVUSD’s forced outing policy was dismissed as moot because the policy was rescinded and prohibited by AB 1955, and the Court of Appeal clearly stated its expectation that the TVUSD Board will abide by AB 1955.
• Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools (2021) amicus brief supported the ability of transgender students to participate in school sports in accordance with their gender identity.
• A.M. v. Indianapolis Public Schools (2022) amicus brief supporting a 10-year-old transgender girl in playing on her elementary school's girls' softball team, and in support of the ability of transgender students to participate in school sports.
• B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education (2022) amicus brief pushing back on the legislative effort to target transgender school children, which prohibited an 11-year-old girl in West Virginia from playing on her school's all-girls cross-country and track teams.
• Equality Florida v. Florida State Board of Education (2022) amicus brief standing up against Florida's so-called "Don't Say Gay" law, which censors or outright prohibits discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the classroom.
• John and Jane Parents v. Montgomery County Board of Education 2023 amicus brief in support of a safe and supportive environment for transgender school children in Maryland.
• Roe v. Critchfield (2023) amicus brief opposing an Idaho state law prohibiting transgender students in K-12 public and charter schools from using multi-use restrooms and other school facilities that correspond with their gender identity.
• Doe v. Mukwonago Area School District (2023) amicus brief supporting the rights of transgender students to challenge a Wisconsin school board's policy barring an 11-year-old transgender student from using the girls' restroom based on her sex assigned at birth.
• Doe v. Horne (2023) amicus brief challenging Arizona legislation prohibiting transgender students from participating on women's and girls' school athletic teams.
• Comment letter (2023) in support of the U.S. Department of Education's proposed rule's prohibition on blanket laws banning transgender student-athlete participation and recommends strengthening provisions of the proposed rule to further protect against discrimination.

Legal Guidance

January 11, 2024 Forced Disclosure Policies re: Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students
BCJ issued a legal alert to remind all California county offices of education, school district, and charter school boards and superintendents that forced gender identity disclosure policies—which target transgender and gender nonconforming students by mandating that school personnel disclose a student's gender identity or gender nonconformity to a parent or guardian without the student's express consent and when disclosure could result in physical, emotional, and psychological harm to the student —violates state law.

January 9, 2024 Guidance to School Officials re: Legal Requirements for Providing Inclusive Curricula and Books
BCJ issued a legal alert to all California county offices of education, school district, and charter school boards and superintendents emphasizing their obligation to provide inclusive curricula in public K-12 schools. The legal alert addresses the responsibilities of local educational agencies related to two recently enacted laws. AB 1078 expands the right to inclusive curricula and books and strengthens the mechanisms for enforcing the right. AB 101 mandates that anticipates that, beginning with the class of 2030, all public high school students will complete an ethnic studies course in order to graduate.

Child abuse and neglect impact children and families from all walks of life throughout California. Across the country, one in four children are estimated to experience abuse or neglect. Child abuse or neglect can cause toxic stress that disrupts childhood development and increases risk of physical and mental health problems, lower academic performance, delinquency and early sexual activity. Harassment and abuse of students in primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools continues to impose deep and lasting harm on those impacted.

The Attorney General administers the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) and enforces the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, which protects children and youth from abuse and neglect. CANRA requires that mandated reporters immediately notify authorities of suspected child abuse so that those agencies can take timely action to investigate the allegations and protect abused children and youth.

In addition to CANRA requirements, local educational agencies are mandated by state and federal law, including the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), to establish policies describing the investigative procedures that must be followed to resolve complaints of abuse and harassment.

BCJ conducts investigations, participates in litigation and issues guidance to ensure that local educational agencies and authorities protect children and youth in California from abuse, harassment and neglect.

Investigations

Redlands Unified School District Investigation
In 2024, following a comprehensive investigation, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with the Redlands Unified School District to address critical and systemic shortfalls in the District's policies and practices regarding their response to allegations and complaints of sexual harassment, assault, and abuse of students. DOJ's investigation found that the District systemically violated laws in place to protect against and address complaints related to sexual assault, harassment, and abuse, including Title IX, the Child Abuse and Neglect and Reporting Act (CANRA), and provisions of the California Education Code. As part of the stipulated judgment, the District is permanently enjoined against violation of these laws, is subject to a minimum of five years of oversight by the court and Attorney General and is required to undertake wide-ranging reforms to ensure that the District responds in a legally adequate manner to promptly prevent, stop, and remedy sexual harassment, assault, or abuse on its campuses.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgment

Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services
In 2018, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment following an investigation that uncovered systemic noncompliance by Humboldt County agencies with California's Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act and the state's Welfare and Institutions Code. The investigation found that the agencies put children's well-being at risk by failing to coordinate their duties to respond to reports of child abuse and neglect. The stipulated judgment required extensive corrective measures across multiple government agencies to ensure that every report of child abuse and neglect is investigated by one or both agencies in a timely manner.

In 2020, BCJ sought a court order to require the Humboldt County agencies to fully comply with the 2018 stipulated judgment. In 2022, BCJ formally closed the monitoring and confirmed that Humboldt County had complied with all the terms of the 2018 and 2020 stipulated judgments.

2018 Complaint
Stipulated Judgment
2020 Motion for Supplemental Judgment
2020 Supplemental Judgment
Final Monitoring Report

Del Norte County Department of Health and Human Services
In 2018, BCJ entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Del Norte County's Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) which required DHHS to address obligations under California's Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. The agreement followed BCJ's review of Del Norte DHHS's practice of sending letters discussing criminal penalties for "false reporting" of suspected child abuse or neglect to persons who had come forward to report abuse or neglect.

BCJ concluded this practice discourages the reporting of child abuse and neglect, and directly conflicts with the goals and the spirit of California's child protection laws. The agreement between California DOJ and Del Norte County DHHS, memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding, required Del Norte County DHHS to immediately implement corrective action with respect to the false reporting letters and to provide mandatory training to all child welfare staff. The agreement also provided for an independent review of Del Norte County DHHS's screening and intake policies, procedures, and practices by an expert consultant and established a plan to address other identified deficiencies after completion of the review.

Memorandum of Understanding

Litigation

Title IX Litigation
In 2020, BCJ, on behalf of the Attorney General, co-led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration's final rule weakening protections under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational programs and activities receiving federal funding. In the complaint, the coalition challenged the rule's implementation, because it undermines Title IX's requirements that students be able to learn in an environment free from discrimination based on sex, including sexual violence and harassment.

While the litigation was pending, the Biden Administration announced that it would amend the Title IX regulation with the opportunity for formal comment. BCJ led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in a comment letter in support of the Biden Administration's proposed rule aimed at strengthening protections against sex discrimination—including sexual violence and harassment—under Title IX.

Complaint
Comment Letter

In 2024, after the Biden Administration released a final rule that restored protections against sexual harassment and assault and clarified that Title IX protects LGBTQ students, BCJ moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

Amicus Briefs

Title IX

• Tennessee v. Cardona (2024) Shortly after the Biden Administration published the final Title IX rules restoring strong protections against sexual harassment and assault and reinforcing critical protection for LGBTQ+ students, a number of conservatives state Attorney Generals and groups filed lawsuits seeking to undermine these essential anti-discrimination protections. In May, BCJ on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, and a multistate coalition filed amicus briefs in support of the Biden Administration's final Title IX rules.
• Tennessee v. Department of Education (2022) amicus brief asserting the U.S. Department of Education and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance correctly interprets Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 to protect workers and students from discrimination.

Guidance

November 9, 2023 Guidance Regarding Students' Free Speech Rights and Schools' Obligation to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment
BCJ issued guidance reminding K-12 schools, colleges and universities of students' rights of freedom of expression, and their obligation to protect all students from discrimination, including by combatting and preventing discriminatory hostile environments.

October 16, 2017 Law enforcement obligations for implementing Senate Bill 1322 and protecting commercially sexually exploited children
This bulletin provides guidance to local law enforcement on how to implement Senate Bill 1322, which protects commercially sexually exploited children. SB 1322 amended Penal Code Sections 647 and 653.2 and minors who are loitering or might otherwise be charged with prostitution must be treated as commercially sexually exploited children under the Welfare and Institutions Code, rather than as perpetrators of crimes.

Over 50,000 children and youth are in foster care in California, and working to ensure that the rights of this vulnerable group of young people are respected is a critical piece of BCJ's work. The needs of this population are significant; children in foster care have experienced abuse and neglect, which can negatively impact their health and development. Students in foster care are more likely to be chronically absent and graduate high school at lower rates.

BCJ conducts investigations and issues guidance to protect the most vulnerable Californian children.

Investigations

Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services
In 2018, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment following an investigation that uncovered systemic noncompliance by both agencies with California's Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act and the state's Welfare and Institutions Code. The investigation found that the Humboldt County agencies put children's well-being at risk by failing to coordinate their duties to respond to reports of child abuse and neglect. The stipulated judgment required extensive corrective measures across multiple government agencies to ensure that every report of child abuse and neglect is investigated by one or both agencies in a timely manner.

In 2020, BCJ sought a court order to require the Humboldt County agencies to fully comply with the 2018 stipulated judgment. In 2022, BCJ formally closed the monitoring and confirmed that Humboldt County had complied with all the terms of the 2018 and 2020 stipulated judgments.

2018 Complaint
Stipulated Judgement
2020 Motion for Supplemental Judgement
2020 Supplemental Judgement
Final Monitoring Report

Guidance

Foster Youth Information Sharing
Federal and state law encourages – and in many cases state law requires – the sharing of data and records to ensure that foster youth receive appropriate supports and services to address their needs. To promote the productive sharing of information, BCJ drafted a "Dear Colleague" letter summarizing state and federal law concerning four issues:

• School officials' access to the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Foster Match Information;
• Information that local education agencies (LEAs) may and must share with child welfare agencies (CWAs);
• Information that CWAs may and must share with LEAs; and
• Information that may and must be shared with caregivers, even if the caregiver is not the foster child's educational rights holder.

February 12, 2015 Letter re Oversight and Enforcement of Laws Related to Foster Youth
The letter outlines rights of foster children relating to home environment and education. It is paramount that state, county and local agencies throughout the State guarantee these rights by fulfilling these legal obligations, including but not limited to:

• Meeting licensing requirements;
• Ensuring quality of care;
• Reporting child abuse;
• Investigating suspected child abuse cases;
• Protecting foster youth against discrimination; and
• Ensuring equal access to education for youth in dependency and juvenile justice systems.

December 9, 2016 Probation Officer Obligations for Probation Youth in Foster Care
This bulletin outlines probation officers' legal responsibilities to foster youth and young adults in the foster care system who are under their supervision. The bulletin made clear that foster youth in the probation system have rights under both state and federal law, and that probation officers have obligations with regard to their placement and care, including identifying relatives for placement and recommending and implementing least restrictive placements.

BCJ works with other attorneys in the Civil Rights Enforcement Section of the Office of the Attorney General to protect the rights of the 1.4 million Californians who identify as Native American or Native American and another race. Other work of the Civil Rights Enforcement Section include investigations of anti-Native American discriminatory conduct.

Investigations

Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services
In 2018, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment following an investigation that uncovered systemic noncompliance by Humboldt County agencies with California's Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act and the state's Welfare and Institutions Code. Humboldt County is home to eight federally recognized Tribal Nations and native children comprise approximately 18% of the child maltreatment allegations in the County. The investigation found that County agencies put children's well-being at risk by failing to engage in tribal collaboration to coordinate their duties to respond to reports of child abuse and neglect with tribal and other authorities. The stipulated judgment required extensive corrective measures across multiple government agencies to ensure that every report of child abuse and neglect is investigated by one or both agencies in a timely manner.

In 2020, BCJ sought a court order to require the Humboldt County agencies to fully comply with the 2018 stipulated judgment. In 2022, BCJ formally closed the monitoring and confirmed that Humboldt County had complied with all the terms of the 2018 and 2020 stipulated judgments.

2018 Complaint
Stipulated Judgment
2020 Motion for Supplemental Judgment
2020 Supplemental Judgment
Final Monitoring Report

Oroville City Elementary School District
In 2019, BCJ opened an investigation into Oroville City Elementary School District after data revealed that OCESD suspended nearly a third of its African-American male students and that it suspended students with disabilities five times more that the statewide average.
The investigation uncovered that OCESD systematically over-disciplined Black students, Native American students, and students with disabilities in violation of civil rights laws and various special education laws. The district agreed to be overseen by an independent monitor to ensure that all OCESD students are treated equally in a safe environment conducive to learning.
On August 25, 2020, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with OCESD to remedy its discriminatory treatment of students based on race and disability. The judgment requires OCESD to, among other reforms, revise its board policies and administrative regulations to comply with state law; implement a culturally responsive positive behavior intervention system; engage in ongoing measures to address the root causes of discrimination in discipline; and effectively and consistently implement accommodations, referrals for special education evaluation, and Functional Behavior Assessments.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgement

Amicus Briefs and Comment Letters

• Haaland v. Brackeen and Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen (2021) amicus briefs in in the District Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (both to the three-judge panel and en banc) urged the courts to reject a challenge to longstanding protections guaranteed to Native American children, their families, and tribal communities under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). DOJ's Office of Solicitor General led the drafting of the amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court, which was joined by a bipartisan coalition of 23 attorneys general. These amicus briefs highlighted the Nation's long history of inequitable removals of Native American children and asserted ICWA is a valid exercise of Congress' powers over tribal affairs. On June 15, 2023, the Court issued a ruling upholding ICWA in full; our amicus brief had been mentioned at oral argument by counsel for the United States and one of the Justices.  

Addressing the rights of children with disabilities is a key facet of BCJ's work. California provides special education services to over 800,000 individuals under the age of 22. Under state and federal law, discrimination on the basis of disability is unlawful, and students with disabilities have a right to a free appropriate public education and reasonable accommodation.

BCJ works with attorneys in the Disability Rights Bureau of the Civil Rights Enforcement Section of the Office of the Attorney General to protect the rights of all Californians with disabilities by conducting investigations, participating in litigation and issuing guidance to protect the rights of Californian children with disabilities.

Investigations

Oroville City Elementary School District
In 2019, BCJ opened an investigation into Oroville City Elementary School District after data revealed that OCESD suspended nearly a third of its African-American male students and that it suspended students with disabilities five times more than the statewide average.

The investigation uncovered that OCESD systematically over-disciplined Black students, Native American students, and students with disabilities in violation of civil rights laws and various special education laws. The district agreed to be overseen by an independent monitor to ensure that all OCESD students are treated equally in a safe environment conducive to learning.
On August 25, 2020, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with OCESD to remedy its discriminatory treatment of students based on race and disability. The judgment requires OCESD to, among other reforms, revise its board policies and administrative regulations to comply with state law; implement a culturally responsive positive behavior intervention system; engage in ongoing measures to address the root causes of discrimination in discipline; and effectively and consistently implement accommodations, referrals for special education evaluation, and Functional Behavior Assessments.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgement

Oroville Union High School District
In 2019, BCJ opened an investigation into Oroville Union High School District's discipline practices after data revealed that OUHSD had the highest rate of suspensions for Black students statewide. In 2020, after a comprehensive investigation, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with the district to address discriminatory discipline against Black students and students with disabilities and a failure to comply with various special education and discipline laws.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgement

Stockton Unified School District
In 2019, after a comprehensive investigation, BCJ entered into court-approved stipulated judgment with Stockton Unified School District and its police department to remedy systemic violations of the civil rights of African-American and Latino students and students with disabilities. BCJ found unconstitutional search and seizure practices and that SUSD's law enforcement referrals policies and practices discriminated against Black and Latino students and students with disabilities. SUSD had systemically criminalized students for minor misconduct, which can result in long-term harms.

BCJ ended monitoring of SUSD in April 2024, concluding the five-year judgment term. SUSD will implement a plan to further reduce disproportionalities in law enforcement referrals through school year 2026-2027. The plan aims to institutionalize reformed policies and practices and continue the progress made under the judgment.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgment

Barstow Unified School District
In 2020, after a comprehensive investigation, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with the Barstow Unified to address discriminatory treatment of students based on race and disability. The year-long investigation uncovered systemic over-reliance on punitive, exclusionary discipline against Black students and students with disabilities. BUSD's own data showed that Black students and students with disabilities were significantly more likely to be punished and suspended than their peers. Black students were punished for 168 percent more days than their white peers.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgment

Mojave Unified School District
In 2020, BCJ entered into court-approved stipulated judgment with the Mojave Unified School District to remedy shortfalls in MUSD's discrimination and retaliation policies and practices. BCJ's investigation found that MUSD had no legally compliant procedure for responding to complaints of discrimination and retaliation. MUSD did not investigate allegations of retaliation, including one in which a parent complained that the school had discriminated against their child and the school's principal threatened immigration consequences against the parent's employer in retaliation. BCJ's investigation also found deficiencies under state law in MUSD's independent study and supervised suspension programs, search and seizure practices, special education evaluation and alternative placement into county community schools, and student record confidentiality training and protocols.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgement

County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Office of Education
After a comprehensive investigation, in 2021, BCJ entered into a court-approved stipulated judgment with the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Office of Education to improve the county's juvenile halls. The investigation found significant deficiencies in the conditions of confinement in Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall and Central Juvenile Hall, endangering youth safety and denying youth legally required services, including education. The County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Office of Education agreed to a wide range of corrective actions to be overseen by an independent monitor and subject matter experts.

Complaint
Stipulated Judgement with County of Los Angeles
Stipulated Judgement with the Los Angeles County Office of Education

Due to the County's ongoing lack of compliance with the Judgment, BCJ brought an enforcement action against the County due to ongoing illegal and unsafe conditions at the juvenile halls. The Court granted BCJ's motion, finding that the County had failed to provide adequate staffing, timely and adequate medical care, education, compensatory education, outdoor recreation, adequate video cameras, a positive behavior management plan, or timely use of force review.

Motion to enforce judgment

Amicus Briefs and Comment Letters

Section 504 Regulations
Comment letter (2022) recommending revisions to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973's implementing regulations to "strengthen and protect" the rights of students with disabilities. Section 504 creates a non-discrimination mandate for students with disabilities applicable to any entity receiving Federal financial assistance. Section 504's implementing regulations have not been updated since 1977. BCJ submitted a detailed list of potential revisions including: (1) preventing harassment and other discriminatory acts aimed at students and increase inclusion; (2) utilizing affirmative technology and other tools to minimize educational barriers; (3) ensuring effective, culturally appropriate, and consistent identification and evaluation procedures; and (4) moving to "people first" language consistent with other federal laws and modern practices.

Discriminatory School Discipline
Natomas Unified School District v. Sacramento County Board of Education (2022) Amicus brief urged the court to overturn an unlawful expulsion of an elementary school student and outlining students' right to due process when facing expulsion from their public school. Students have a constitutional right to an education and equal opportunity, and BCJ argued that mandatory expulsions should be reserved for students who pose the greatest threat to safety.

Guidance

February 4, 2019 Letter Reminding Schools Obligations Re Discrimination in School Discipline
The guidance letter highlighted state and federal laws that protect students from discriminatory and excessive discipline. The letter reminded school districts that decades of research has consistently shown that students subject to out-of-school disciplinary removals suffer significant adverse impacts, including decreased educational achievement and a significantly higher likelihood of arrest, school dropout, and juvenile justice involvement. The letter also discussed effective, research based alternatives to out of school suspensions and encouraged those with information about potentially unlawful discipline practices to contact the Bureau.