$175K Settlement in Suit Over Requiring Fifth-Graders to Read Pro-Gender-Ideology Books to Kindergarten Students (with No Opt Out)

Reason · collected 2026-09-15 · by Eugene Volokh
Read the original at Reason ↗

Summary

A lawsuit over a California school district’s requirement for fifth-graders to read a pro-gender-ideology book, "My Shadow Is Pink," to kindergarteners settled last year for $175,000. The case involved fifth graders P.D. and S.E., who felt uncomfortable with the content due to religious beliefs opposing such concepts; their parents did not receive prior notice or opt-out options regarding this mandatory school activity.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-16, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event.

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
52
claim-shaped sentences
Uncertain
10%
5 of 52 hedged
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Correction & hedging signals
92.4
corrections and hedging in what we collected; not a measure of accuracy
Outlets on this story
unclustered
not grouped into a story yet
Narrative spread
1
articles carrying this framing
Analyzed 2026-09-16 · how these are computed

AI analysis (generated at analysis time, not now)

Why this leaning score
The model judged this article politically coded and scored it -0.45, but every quote it verified points right, so the score is not published.
Written under an earlier scoring contract, which gave a paragraph rather than checkable quotes. Re-analysing this article replaces it.
Leaning score withheld for article 10853: score contradicts its own evidence · logged 2026-09-16

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.

Publisher

Reason · 164 article(s) · 1 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 1 correction(s)
2026-09-05
Lawyers' Responsibility for Hallucinations in Briefs That They Sign

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
57 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 These gag orders, first promulgated by the Postmaster General in the late 19th century and later expanded by executive orders issued by Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft, prohibited civil servants from petitioning or giving information to Congress, or advocating for improved pay or working conditions except through their departmental head.
🔮 Furthermore, the teachers suggested that similar buddy activities would be provided in the future without notice and an opportunity to opt out.
🔮 Under subsection B of Oklahoma H.B. 1775, public-school employees may not "require or make part of a course" any of eight prohibited "concepts."
🔮 It also relies on a populist sensibility that separates its supporters—"the people"—from those who would indoctrinate them.
🔮 As Defendant's counsel conceded on the record at the April 28 Conference, the fair report privilege is contextual and depends on whether a reader would understand that a statement refers to the background or findings of a proceeding.
🔮 If you purposefully set out to concoct a government policy guaranteed to be unconstitutional, here is how you would do it.
🔮 WHEREAS, Respondent admitted to the Court that he did not verify the factual claims and legal authority in his AI-generated brief before signing it and filing it with the Court, and that he did not inform his client of this failure or that the brief in chief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations; {WHEREAS, this matter came on for consideration by the Court upon its own motion to show cause, whereupon the Court issued an order to show cause to Respondent, Defendant-Appellant's attorney Stephen D. Aarons, directing him to show cause in person before the Court on August 21, 2026, why he should not be held in contempt and referred to the Disciplinary Board for the factual and legal misrepresentations he made to the Court in his brief in chief, and response thereto;} WHEREAS, Respondent also admitted to the Court that he did not inform his client of the order to show cause proceedings or provide his client with copies of the order to show cause pleadings; WHEREAS, the Court having considered the response and oral argument presented, concludes that Respondent demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client; … Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas, Justice Michael E. Vigil, Justice C. Shannon Bacon, Justice David K. Thomson, and Justice Briana H. Zamora concurring; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent, STEPHEN D. AARONS, is found in DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter, with respect to Respondent, is hereby referred to the Disciplinary Board for further consideration; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent is barred from appearing before this Court, pending the outcome of the investigation and proceedings, if any, before the Disciplinary Board; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following the Disciplinary Board investigation and proceedings, if any, the Court will make further determinations regarding Respondent in accordance with the Rules Governing Discipline; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Law Office of the Public Defender is hereby appointed to represent Defendant-Appellant in this appeal and shall assign counsel to this matter who shall enter an appearance on behalf of Defendant-Appellant forthwith; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all briefing filed in this matter is hereby STRICKEN; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following the entry of appearance of new defense counsel, a new briefing order shall be issued and the case will proceed with the intention that it will be heard during the Court's 2026-2027 term; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a sanction for direct contempt, Stephen D. Aarons shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, pay a sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund and shall notify the Court in writing when such payment is made …. Read the Ars Technica story for more.
🔮 Keene alleged that, from May 24 to June 27, 2025, at least four Google "AI Overviews" said false things about him: - Keene was "serving a life sentence without parole for multiple convictions." - He was "serving a life sentence without parole for the murders of three women." - He "was convicted of drug trafficking."
🔮 affirming a police department's "redact[ing] officers' names from certain training certificates" released in response to a Right-to-Know Law request for a police department's "287(g) agreement" with ICE: Section 708(b)(1)(ii) of the RTKL exempts from disclosure a record that "would be reasonably likely to result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to or the personal security of an individual."
🔮 Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent An excerpt from the long opinion today in Lewis-Williams v. S.F. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., decided by Judge Ryan Nelson, joined by Judges Johnnie Rawlinson and Bridget Bade: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District seeks to overturn a jury verdict of $7,824,580 to six former employees for Title VII violations for failure to accommodate their sincere religious objections to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
More on this subject from Eugene Volokh
All 57 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

P.D. P.D. and S.E.'s S.D. Cal S.E. S.E. v. Grey

Subjects

P.D. PERSON · 3× S.E. PERSON · 2× James Lorenz PERSON · 1× P.D. and S.E.'s ORG · 1× S.D. Cal GPE · 1× S.E. v. Grey ORG · 1×

Narrative

In light of P.D.'s role in the class as his buddy's mentor, P.D.'s presence next to his buddy during the read-along video presentation and subsequent tracing of his buddy's shadow in the buddy's chosen color implicitly conveyed P.D.'s endorsement of the message that gender can be a matter of one's choice and subject to change—a message contrary to P.D.'s own beliefs and which he did not wish to convey to his buddy.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-16
🔮 Furthermore, the teachers suggested that similar buddy activities would be provided in the future without notice and an opportunity to opt out.

Claims (52 extracted, 5 hedged)

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent This case, which I blogged about last year, just settled yesterday for $175K ($108K to S.E. and his family, $40K to P.D. and his family, and $27K to the lawyers). asserted
I → blogge → lawyers
Here's my post from last year about the preliminary injunction in the case (which has now been vacated as part of the settlement): asserted
which → vacate → settlement
[* * *] From Judge James Lorenz's order yesterday in S.E. v. Grey (S.D. Cal.): The school activity at issue occurred in the context of the buddy program, a weekly class pairing younger and older students. asserted
activity → occur → students
P.D. and S.E., both fifth graders, were each paired with a kindergartener. asserted
P.D. → pair → kindergartener
In this program, "students in the older classroom mentor students in the younger classroom." asserted
students → mentor → classroom
Until the buddy class at issue, the buddy program involved art or garden projects, and any books read in the class were selected by the students. asserted
books → involve → students
The school sent parents a weekly newsletter listing the books the students were reading each week. asserted
students → send → books
For the buddy class at issue, the book entitled My Shadow Is Pink was selected by the teachers and was not listed in the weekly newsletter. asserted
Shadow → entitle → newsletter
My Shadow Is Pink is about a boy who liked to wear dresses and play with toys associated with girls. asserted
who → like → girls
Because the boy thought he did not "fit in" with his family and peers, his shadow was pink rather than blue. asserted
shadow → think → family
The story involves a conflict between the boy and his father. asserted
story → involve → boy
The father eventually comes to accept his son's "pink shadow" not as a phase but as reflecting the boy's "inner-most self." asserted
father → come → self
Although the term "gender identity" does not appear in the book, the author describes it as a children's book on the subject of gender identity. asserted
author → appear → identity
Defendants admit that the book "does address gender identity." asserted
book → admit → identity
In preparation for the buddy class, the teacher first read the book to P.D. and S.E.'s fifth grade class. asserted
teacher → read → class
The fifth graders then joined their kindergarten buddies, and the teacher showed a read-along video of the book to the fifth graders sitting next to their respective buddies. asserted
teacher → join → buddies
The video was followed by an "art activity" in which the teacher asked the kindergarteners to "pick a color that represents you," and instructed the fifth graders to trace their respective buddies' shadows on the ground with colored chalk. asserted
that → follow → chalk
Although the class did not involve an explicit discussion of gender identity, the fact that the book addressed this issue was not lost on the students. asserted
book → involve → students
S.E. described the book as "about LGBTQ." asserted
S.E. → describe → LGBTQ
P.D. described it as "about a boy who wanted to change his gender to be a girl. asserted
who → describe → gender
Because choosing one's own gender identity is contrary to Plaintiffs' religious beliefs, they were uncomfortable with the buddy class. asserted
they → choose → class
Moreover, as mentors, P.D. and S.E. did not wish to affirm the book's message to their buddies. asserted
P.D. → wish → buddies
When S.E. and P.D. told their parents about the class, the parents inquired with Defendants why they did not receive notice and an opportunity to opt out, as they did when gender identity was covered in health instruction…. asserted
identity → tell → instruction
California Education Code Section 51240 … provides in pertinent part: If any part of a school's instruction in health conflicts with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or guardian of a pupil, the pupil, upon written request of the parent or guardian, shall be excused from the part of the instruction that conflicts with the religious training and beliefs. … asserted
that → provide → training
Defendants responded that Plaintiffs had no right to opt out because the buddy class was not part of a "health unit." asserted
class → respond → unit
Furthermore, the teachers suggested that similar buddy activities would be provided in the future without notice and an opportunity to opt out. uncertain
activities → suggest → .
S.E.'s and P.D.'s parents sued on their children's behalf. asserted
parents → sue → behalf
The court held that the program, which was "a mandatory part of the curriculum," likely violated the First Amendment rights of students who didn't want to participate: asserted
who → hold → students
The buddy program differs from regular classroom instruction in that the fifth graders mentor their kindergarten buddies. asserted
graders → differ → buddies
In addition, My Shadow Is Pink buddy class required fifth graders to trace their buddy's shadow on the ground in the buddy's chosen color. asserted
class → require → color
P.D.'s tracing of his buddy's shadow on the ground was an expressive act protected by the First Amendment…. asserted
tracing → protect → Amendment
In light of P.D.'s role in the class as his buddy's mentor, P.D.'s presence next to his buddy during the read-along video presentation and subsequent tracing of his buddy's shadow in the buddy's chosen color implicitly conveyed P.D.'s endorsement of the message that gender can be a matter of one's choice and subject to change—a message contrary to P.D.'s own beliefs and which he did not wish to convey to his buddy. asserted
he → read → buddy
P.D.'s required participation in the buddy class therefore directly and immediately affected P.D.'s freedom of speech. asserted
participation → require → speech
"Mandating speech that a speaker would not otherwise make necessarily alters the content of the speech." asserted
speaker → mandate → speech
Laws and regulations which alter content of speech in this manner are content based…. asserted
which → alter → manner
"Content-based regulations are 'presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.' uncertain
they → base → interests
" California Education Code [sections] regarding instructional materials and social sciences instruction … require schools to include the study of the role played and contributions made to California and national development by members of historically marginalized groups, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender groups. asserted
sections → regard → groups
California law also prohibits excluding educational materials due to covering the marginalized groups, mandates that these groups be accurately reflected in educational materials, and prohibits their adverse portrayal. asserted
groups → prohibit → portrayal
Defendants argue that My Shadow Is Pink conformed to these requirements. asserted
Shadow → argue → requirements
Its inclusion in the buddy program was intended to stress the acceptance of those who are different and reduce the serious effects of discrimination against gender-diverse individuals. asserted
who → intend → individuals
…and 12 more, not listed.
💬 Give feedback
🕘 History 🎫 Support