Image 01 Image 03

NY AG Letitia James Sued for Censoring Parents and School Boards Over Gender Debate

NY AG Letitia James Sued for Censoring Parents and School Boards Over Gender Debate

School groups claim the State prohibits them from expressing viewpoints on gender identity with which it disagrees.

For many parents, school board meetings have become the “front lines” in the fight for their children’s education. At these real-time public gatherings, fed-up moms and dads push back on woke school policies, advocate for their children, and hold local school leaders to account.

And when they do, they aren’t just exercising their civic duty; they’re exercising their constitutional right to free speech.

NY AG James To School Board Members: Toe the Trans Party Line Or You’re Out

That right took a direct hit in New York on May 8, 2025, when Attorney General Letitia James and Education Commissioner Betty A. Rosa issued a “Joint Guidance on Harassment and Bullying at School Board Meetings.”

The vaguely worded “Guidance Letter” warned school boards statewide that “misgendering” students—using pronouns based on biological sex—or publicly supporting sex-segregated sports and facilities could lead to board members’ removal from office.

Now, a group of parents and school board members, represented by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, is fighting back in federal court. In Wachter et al. v. Letitia James and New York State Education Department, they are asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to declare the guidance unconstitutional and halt its enforcement.

The school group claims the Letter singles out disfavored viewpoints—e.g., supporting sex-segregated sports and facilities—labeling them as “attacks,” “bullying,” and “harassment,” in an old ploy to recast otherwise protected speech as actionable conduct.

To make matters worse, the lawsuit states, these terms are not defined in the Letter, leaving it to the reader to “divine what speech on gender identity and transgender issues might offend.”

While the wording is vague, however, the Letter’s message to the school board members is clear: Toe the transgender party line or you’re out.

It doesn’t end there. The State can also allegedly punish school board members for what they don’t say. Even if the board members say nothing, according to the lawsuit, the State threatens them with removal for merely allowing parents (or other attendees) to express their disagreement with the approved transgender orthodoxy, “misgender” students, or question the “legitimacy of students’ gender identity.”

In other words, silence is assent.

The State, predictably, purports to protect transgender students’ rights to a “safe and supportive learning environment”—but the school groups say it’s draping a “cloak of silence over school board meetings across New York.”

They say the state guidance forces school board members into an “unconstitutional choice”: either suppress speech they agree with, including their own, or risk removal from office by the Commissioner of Education for permitting contrary viewpoints on gender identity issues. 

The War on School Boards Is a War on Parents

And when the State threatens school board members, the parents claim it is threatening them, jeopardizing their full speaking time at school board meetings—and their reputations, should they be branded as harassers and bullies.

Of course, this is not the first time the government has used censorship of parents and their school boards as a tool of political power. The New York lawsuit comes nearly five years after the Biden administration sicced federal law enforcement on parents protesting Critical Race Theory at school board meetings. The DOJ’s actions followed a letter (since retracted) from the National School Board Association to Biden, comparing the parents to “domestic terrorists.”

Later, Attorney General Merrick Garland backpedaled, defending the parents’ “totally protected” First Amendment rights to “complain as vociferously as they wish about the education of their children,” absent threats of violence.

Now, with Attorney General Pam Bondi at the helm—and vowing to shield parental rights—that is the parents’ argument as they fight against the State’s battle to intimidate them and their school boards into silence.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Keep those law suits coming. Bury the left in them.

“To make matters worse, the lawsuit states, these terms are not defined in the Letter, leaving it to the reader to “divine what speech on gender identity and transgender issues might offend.”

And if you want more of this, continue not making the Seditious Six’s lives hell.

and yet this DEI hack is still there.

I thought Trump got rid of her

It’s an assault on speech that’s at the intersection of the two great classes of protected speech: offensive speech (the only kind of non-political speech that needs protection, and therefore a class of speech the Constitution protects) and political speech (which has heretofore never been considered “offensive” even when it is sometimes “disagreeable”).

    Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 17, 2026 at 9:35 pm

    Political speech has often been considered offensive. Consider the infamous Schenck decision, which ignorant people quote to this day, that compared distributing anti-conscription flyers to “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 18, 2026 at 12:49 am

      That’s what I said. I didn’t say this was a novel incidence of such a confluence, just that this situation involves one.

      that compared distributing anti-conscription flyers to “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”.

      And…….no.

      The (in)famous line of “falsely shouting fire in a theater” is not used to compare the distribution of the flyers to “falsely shouting fire in a theater,” but only to point out that not all speech is protected.

      In short, the First Amendment (like all other amendments and rights) is not an absolute.

      Justice Holmes states that as not all speech can and should be protected, the printing and distribution of the flyers was contrary to the law of the day.

      He never makes a direct comparison to the flyers and “falsely shouting fire.”

      You are right that people wrongfully use the statement in the decision (often forgetting “falsely,”) but people in glass houses should not throw the “ignorance” card around when making statements that are not supported by the decision itself and therefore displaying a brand of ignorance themselves.

        henrybowman in reply to gitarcarver. | February 18, 2026 at 2:21 pm

        “He never makes a direct comparison to the flyers and “falsely shouting fire.”

        The ACLU says you’re wrong, and I agree.

        Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld a conviction under the 1917 Espionage Act (the actual passage is “[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic”).
        It’s crucial to note exactly what was being prosecuted in Schenck. The defendant—a member of the Socialist Party—was being prosecuted for a pamphlet urging opposition to the draft. It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience. Nevertheless, despite the offense being nothing like shouting fire in a crowded theater, Holmes used the analogy to justify this now roundly derided decision.

        It’s not just a comparison, it’s a comparison that comes through the door carrying cuffs, chains, and prison time.

but but. but … TRUMP !!!!

lol

to this issue I say … the process is the punishment … keep it coming

    George S in reply to jqusnr. | February 18, 2026 at 8:13 am

    Punishment? The AG will use taxpayer dollars and government lawyers to defend the suit.

    The danger here is a judge ruling that ‘harassment’ is an exception to the FA and find for the State. The AG has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

I reprehend these gender bender defenders.

These suits should be pushed, if for no other reason than to publicize the Demsocialist insanity.

It appears that Orwell was an amateur….fact exceeds fiction, particularly when Dems are involved. This is beyond parody.

destroycommunism | February 18, 2026 at 10:19 am

betting shes mumbling

hy metown ,under her breath

I don’t know if Guidance can be actionable until NY tries to enforce something.

She loves the victim class…those are ‘her people’. In her world, everyone except white males are victims….only white males are responsible for their actions. So no matter how many people mentally ill transgendered people murder, they must be treated as victims.