Judge Allows CA School District's CRT Ban, Trans Policy To Stand

CALIFORNIA — Lawsuits targeting socially conservative policies in two California public school districts are being watched statewide. Recent rulings in both cases, however, offer uncertainty on where the courts will land.

On Friday, Riverside Superior Court Judge Eric Keen denied a request to temporarily halt policies put in place by the Temecula Valley Unified School District governing board.

Plaintiffs in Mae M. v. Komrosky sought a preliminary injunction to halt a December 2022 action banning discussion of critical race theory in the TVUSD and another policy passed in August 2023 that requires the district to notify parents if their kids want to be identified by a gender other than what is on official birth records.

Both policies were both adopted 3-2 by the TVUSD governing board’s conservative majority. The policies stirred division in the district and sparked several student-led protests and contentious governing board meetings. Amid the discontent, Mae M. v. Komrosky was brought forward in August by a coalition of students, teachers and parents.

Despite Friday's setback for the plaintiffs, the judge has ruled against the defense's effort to dismiss the case, so it will go on. Still, the defense views Friday's ruling as an early victory.

Defense Attorney Robert Tyler, president of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, called it "a win for commonsense, parents, and the safety of students."

TVUSD Governing Board President Dr. Joseph Komrosky, who is targeted in the suit, also lauded Friday's ruling and said he was optimistic about the district.

"I believe that the diversity that exists among the District’s community of students, staff, parents, and guardians is an asset to be honored and valued," said Komrosky, who is facing a recall election later this year. "These policies were enacted by the school board to ensure our district puts the needs of students and their parents above all else. Our district remains focused on providing a holistic education for all of our students, free from both discrimination and indoctrination."

But Friday's ruling is in sharp contrast to one issued last October in which a preliminary injunction was issued against the Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education. The ruling halted the district’s mandatory gender notification policy. The preliminary injunction bolstered California Attorney General Rob Bonta's efforts to overturn the policy that has been adopted by a handful of other Golden State school districts beyond the CVUSD and TVUSD, including Anderson Union High School District, Murrieta Valley Unified School District, Orange Unified School District, and Rocklin Unified School District.

In October's San Bernardino Superior Court ruling, Judge Michael Sachs said the main provisions of the CVUSD policy are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of California's Constitution and discriminate against transgender and gender nonconforming students.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed Aug. 28 by Bonta, in which the attorney general argues the CVUSD policy infringes on several state protections safeguarding students’ civil and constitutional rights. The lawsuit also alleges the policy puts transgender and gender-nonconforming students in danger of "imminent, irreparable harm from the consequences of forced disclosures."

Following the October ruling, Bonta issued a rebuke.

"Let this decision serve as a stern warning to other school districts that have passed or are contemplating similar policies: enforcing discriminatory practices will not be tolerated in our educational institutions," he said.

Like Mae M. v. Komrosky, California v. CVUSD continues to wind through the court. Where either case will ultimately land is unknown.

The plaintiffs in Mae M. v. Komrosky are represented by Public Counsel and Ballard Spahr, with support from the California Teachers Association. Patch has reached out for comment and this article will be updated when remarks are released.