California Assembly Bill 1266 requires every public school in the state to let transgender students participate in sex-segregated programs, including athletic teams, and use facilities that match their gender identity, regardless of the gender listed in school records. Signed on August 12, 2013, the law added one subsection to Education Code Section 221.5 and remains binding state law today, even as a 2025 federal executive order has pushed in the opposite direction.1California Legislative Information. California Assembly Bill 1266 – Pupil Rights
What the Law Actually Says
AB 1266 amended Education Code Section 221.5 by adding subsection (f). It states that a student must be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and to use facilities consistent with the student’s gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.2California Legislative Information. California Education Code 221.5 – Pupil Rights: Sex-Segregated School Programs and Activities
One sentence, but it covers every sex-segregated activity a school runs. PE classes. Athletic rosters. Restrooms. Locker rooms. Overnight field trips.
The phrase “irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records” is doing the heavy lifting. The student’s self-identification controls. Schools cannot require a doctor’s note, a court order, a legal name change, or evidence of any particular stage of transition before honoring a student’s gender identity.1California Legislative Information. California Assembly Bill 1266 – Pupil Rights
How It Fits With California’s Other School Discrimination Laws
AB 1266 did not invent transgender protections in California schools. Education Code Section 220 already prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression in any program or activity run by an educational institution that receives state financial assistance.3California Legislative Information. California Education Code 220 – Prohibition of Discrimination Section 220 is the broad anti-discrimination rule. AB 1266 is the specific instruction telling schools how to apply that rule when programs and facilities are separated by sex.
In 2024, California enacted AB 1955, adding further LGBTQ+ student protections. The California Department of Education has said its current guidance under AB 1955 replaces the older FAQ documents it had issued for AB 1266.4California Department of Education. Protections for LGBTQ+ Students: AB 1955 Districts looking for current compliance materials should start with the AB 1955 guidance rather than the older AB 1266 resources.
What It Means for School Sports
Athletics is where AB 1266 has drawn the most attention. Under the law, a transgender girl can try out for the girls’ basketball team and a transgender boy can compete on the boys’ track team. The statute itself does not add a separate eligibility screening for transgender athletes.
The California Interscholastic Federation, which governs high school sports statewide, adopted a matching policy. CIF Regulation 300 D provides that all students should have the opportunity to participate in CIF activities in a manner consistent with their gender identity, regardless of the gender listed on their records. Either the student or the school may ask CIF for guidance if a question arises, but the initial eligibility decision sits at the school level.5California Department of Education. Response to the Department of Justice Letter Regarding California In practice, that means a school administrator works with the student and family rather than routing every case to a statewide body.
What It Means for Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Overnight Trips
Every facility a school separates by sex falls under the law. Restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas must be accessible consistent with a student’s gender identity.2California Legislative Information. California Education Code 221.5 – Pupil Rights: Sex-Segregated School Programs and Activities The statute does not dictate how districts handle the logistics.
Some districts have added single-occupancy restrooms or private changing stalls to give every student more privacy options without singling anyone out. Others have relied on existing facilities. The law does not require any specific infrastructure investment. Districts that provide no reasonable path for transgender students to use facilities matching their identity risk complaints under state law and, historically, federal civil rights law.
Overnight trips carry their own questions. Sleeping arrangements, cabin assignments, and hotel rooming decisions all sit inside the law’s reach, and districts are expected to accommodate students consistent with their gender identity rather than routing them to separate facilities.
The 2013 Repeal Referendum That Fell Short
AB 1266 faced an organized repeal effort almost immediately after it was signed. A group called Privacy For All Students launched a referendum drive and submitted 619,244 raw signatures before the November 2013 deadline. The campaign needed at least 504,760 valid signatures to place the repeal on the November 2014 ballot. After individual signature verification, only about 487,760 qualified, roughly 17,000 short.
The measure never reached voters. No serious legislative effort to repeal or weaken the law has emerged since, and no state court has struck it down.
The Federal Conflict Since 2025
The most significant recent development affecting AB 1266 came from Washington, not Sacramento. In February 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14201, titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which directs the Department of Education to take enforcement action against schools that allow transgender women and girls to compete in women’s athletics or access women’s locker rooms.6The White House. Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports The order treats these practices as Title IX violations rather than Title IX compliance, reversing the interpretation California’s law was built alongside.
The order instructs the Secretary of Education to prioritize enforcement against institutions that require female students to compete against or share locker rooms with male-bodied athletes, and authorizes agencies to rescind federal funding from programs that do not comply.6The White House. Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports The federal Department of Education has followed through by investigating California schools and demanding corrective action, including a separate push to require districts to notify parents when a student’s expressed gender identity changes at school.
California has pushed back. The California Department of Education has publicly maintained that the state’s CIF policy allowing participation consistent with gender identity remains in effect, and state officials have characterized the federal demands as unlawful.5California Department of Education. Response to the Department of Justice Letter Regarding California The federal government has threatened to cut billions in education funding to the state over its noncompliance. At least one federal judge has temporarily blocked the funding cuts while litigation continues. The standoff is ongoing.
Where That Leaves California Schools
California districts are caught between a state law that unambiguously requires transgender-inclusive access and a federal administration that treats the same access as a violation. As a practical matter, AB 1266 remains binding state law, and the California Department of Education continues to enforce it. No state court has struck it down and no legislative repeal is pending.
Federal funding threats are the wild card. Districts that comply with AB 1266 risk federal enforcement action. Districts that follow the federal executive order risk violating state law and facing complaints from students and families. Most California districts have continued following state law while the federal challenges play out, which is the approach the state Department of Education has endorsed. Administrators should still track the litigation closely, because a definitive federal court ruling could change the calculus.
For the students AB 1266 was written to protect, it remains one of the strongest state-level guarantees of transgender access to school programs anywhere in the country. Whether federal policy will narrow that guarantee, or whether California’s approach will survive intact, is the central unresolved question in this area of education law right now.