City of Huntington Beach, et al. v. Newsom, et al.

9th Cir. · 25-3826 · 2025 · CourtListener

Cite as City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom, No. 25-3826 (9th Cir. filed June 18, 2025)

Circuit9th Cir.Schools & education Family & parental rights

Docket

No. 25-3826

Date filed: 2025-06-18
Last filing: 2026-07-09

Proceedings

9th Cir. · No. 25-3826 · Docket on CourtListener

20 docket entries · 18 documents

City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom, No. 25-3826 (9th Cir. filed June 18, 2025)

Recent docket activity

From the case's dockets as the archive holds them; each docket page lists every entry.

Show 1 more

2026-06-18 CLERK ACTION: Amicus Brief submitted at DE 29 by American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California is filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 06/18/2026 04:50 PM]#62

Timeline

2025-06-18 Filed: 9th Cir., No. 25-3826
2025-11-04 Oral argument, 9th Cir.

Oral argument

9th Cir. · read transcript

2025-11-04 · 49 min · Panel: COLLINS, LEE, KOH

Oral Argument, City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom, No. 25-3826 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2025)

Filings on file (18 in 17 docket entries)

Filings on file
Date	No.	Document	Type	Pages	Source
	2	filing		4	PDF CL
	10	filing		2	PDF CL
	14	filing		104	PDF CL

	14	OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant City of Huntington Beach, Appellant Parent	Brief	104
	20	filing		2	PDF CL
	26	filing		73	PDF CL
	32	filing		37	PDF CL
	38	filing		45	PDF CL
	42	filing		8	PDF CL
2025-11-13	49	MOTION for Injunctive Relief filed by Appellant Parent. [Entered: 11/13/2025 07:22 AM]		18	PDF CL
2025-11-25	51	REPLY to Response to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 50) filed by Appellant Parent. [Entered: 11/25/2025 08:03 AM]		15	PDF CL
2026-02-19	53	ORDER FILED. Daniel P. COLLINS, Kenneth K. LEE, Lucy H. KOH Before the court is Plaintiffs-Appellants’ “Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal, Only as to Parent 7A” (Dkt. 49), and their accompanying motion for judicial notice (Dkt. 48). On September 12, 2025, we denied Plaintiffs-Appellants’ previous motion for an injunction pending appeal, concluding that they had failed to make a sufficient showing of Article III standing. See Dkt. 42. Specifically, we held that Plaintiffs-Appellants had failed to adequately show that their asserted “future injuries are fairly traceable to AB 1955 and would be redressed by a decision invalidating AB 1955 in whole or in part.” Id. at 5. In the instant motion, Plaintiff-Appellant 7A, whose child attends high school in an unspecified school district in Orange County, asserts that she has now “fill[ed] th[e] gap” identified in our prior order. We disagree and deny the motion... Accordingly, we deny Plaintiffs-Appellants’ renewed motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal (Dkt. 49) and their accompanying motion for judicial notice (Dkt. 48). (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) [Entered: 02/19/2026 03:54 PM]		4	PDF CL
2026-03-13	55	SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee Gavin Newsom, Appellee Rob Bonta, Appellee Tony Thurmond.--[COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF attached as of 3/13/2026, REPLACING original attachment] [Entered: 03/13/2026 01:34 PM] [Edited: 03/13/2026 04:08 PM]		14	PDF CL
2026-03-13	57	SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant City of Huntington Beach, Appellant Parent. [Entered: 03/13/2026 07:00 PM]		20	PDF CL
2026-03-16	60	RESPONSE to Motion to Reconsider Nondispositive Order (DE 58) filed by Appellee Gavin Newsom, Appellee Rob Bonta, Appellee Tony Thurmond. [Entered: 03/16/2026 06:16 PM]		5	PDF CL
2026-06-18	61	ORDER FILED. Daniel P. COLLINS, Kenneth K. LEE, Lucy H. KOH Before the court is “Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal” (Dkt. 58), filed on behalf of Plaintiffs-Appellants 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, and 10A (“Movants”).1 We have twice denied motions for preliminary injunctions pending appeal, concluding that the relevant Plaintiffs-Appellants had failed to make a sufficient showing of Article III standing. Dkts. 42, 53. In the instant motion, Movants assert that, in light of Mirabelli v. Bonta, 607 U.S. 492 (2026), we should reconsider our denial of a preliminary injunction pending appeal. We agree, grant the motion, and grant a preliminary injunction as described below. . . . Accordingly, we grant Movants’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 58).3 Pending the disposition of this appeal and the issuance of our mandate, we enjoin Defendants-Appellees from taking any action to enforce Sections 5 and 6 of AB 1955 (codified as California Education Code §§ 220.3(a), 220.5(a)) as to Parents 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, and 10A with respect to information about their respective children exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) [Entered: 06/18/2026 04:25 PM]		10	PDF CL
2026-07-08	65	CITATION of Supplemental Authorities (28j Letter) filed by Appellee Gavin Newsom, Appellee Rob Bonta, Appellee Tony Thurmond. [Entered: 07/08/2026 10:29 AM]		7	PDF CL
2026-07-09	67	CITATION of Supplemental Authorities (28j Letter) filed by Appellant City of Huntington Beach, Appellant Parent. [Entered: 07/09/2026 02:51 PM]		2	PDF CL

Browse and search the 18 court documents in the archive for this case.

Litigation

Court cases about transgender and other LGBTQ+ people · federal & state courts

Cases tracked

Case name Court Level Issue / type Circuit Outcome Year ≥ Year ≤

loading…

Case	Court	Level	Cir.	Year	Issue / type	Outcome	Docs

Every case in the corpus. Click a case name for its overview; click any column to sort, again to reverse. Each case has one main issue and may raise others (shown as "also…"); the Issue filter finds a case by either. Issues were checked case by case in September 2026. Level, circuit and outcome come from the coded caselaw dataset, so some rows are blank where a case hasn't been coded yet.

Archive stats

Group by

Direct counts from the archive index — instant and exact. Counts are FILINGS (docket entries); the distinct-case figure is shown alongside.

Cases by issue

Every tracked case once, under its main issue, split by the coded direction of its final ruling (the same reading as "Reached a final ruling" below): favorable or adverse to the LGBTQ-rights claim, or mixed. The empty part of each bar is cases with no coded ruling at the trial, circuit or Supreme Court stage yet, which is most of them; it is not a claim that they have no outcome. Choose a bar to list its cases.

Loading…

Reached a final ruling

The coded direction at the HIGHEST stage a case reached — trial-level, circuit-court or Supreme Court only. A preliminary-injunction ruling never counts as final, and a "procedural, no direction" or "unclear" coding is excluded rather than shown as an outcome.

Loading…

Case duration

Filed to terminated, from real CourtListener docket dates, among cases where EVERY tracked docket has terminated (an open appellate docket alongside a closed district one is pending, not resolved). No stage-by-stage date exists in this corpus, so only this one span is shown; dates cover only the tracked-docket tier — see the coverage note below the numbers.

Loading…

Cases by circuit

A real geographic map, states shaded by their circuit's case count relative to the busiest circuit (linear). The Federal Circuit has no state territory of its own (its jurisdiction is subject matter, not geography) and so never paints here, but still appears in the list and the table. Select a circuit below for its final-ruling mix.

Table view (stages, durations and circuits)

Expert witnesses

Filter Appears in

A curated roster of the recurring expert witnesses in this litigation, with every declaration, expert report, affidavit, deposition and trial-testimony document the corpus holds for each, grouped by case. Coverage is limited by what has been pulled: expert material is heavily attachment-borne, so a witness who testified in ten cases may show fewer here, and some documents are marked in a larger filing — the testimony sits inside an appendix or exhibit set rather than as its own entry.

Judges

Filter Appointed by Coded rulings

The record counts how the judge voted, not how the case came out. Dissents and concurrences are parsed from the opinions themselves ("NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting"), so a judge who dissented is scored against the panel's result — without that, Judge Niemeyer read 4–3 favorable to trans claimants. Partial dissents are shown but left out of the tally. Votes come from separate-writing headings and from the opinion's own joinder block ("Judge Richardson wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson, Judge Niemeyer… joined"), so a judge who joins a dissent without writing one still counts. Judges are resolved to real people against the Federal Judicial Center directory using the deciding court — there are 32 federal judges named Smith, and two Judge Pryors on the Eleventh Circuit. 195 ambiguous name/court pairs were dropped rather than merged, and a case with no opinion text in the corpus keeps the panel result for want of anything better. Small numbers are small numbers: three rulings is not a tendency.