Judge Allows Temecula Valley USD's CRT Ban, Trans Policy To Stand

TEMECULA, CA — Policies put in place by the Temecula Valley Unified School District governing board can remain in place while a lawsuit challenging them winds through court, a judge ruled Friday.

Plaintiffs in Mae M. v. Komrosky sought a preliminary injunction to halt a December 2022 policy 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.

Riverside Superior Court Judge Eric Keen denied the plaintiffs' request to temporarily halt the policies while the case progresses. On Feb. 15, he ruled against the defense's effort to get Mae M. v. Komrosky tossed out of court.

In Friday's decision, the judge found the plaintiffs did not show sufficient evidence proving students will be harmed by the policies while the case proceeds.

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

TVUSD Governing Board President Dr. Joseph Komrosky 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."

Both policies were both adopted by the TVUSD board’s conservative majority — Komrosky, Jennifer Wiersma and Danny Gonzalez. Board members Allison Barclay and Steven Schwartz were opposed. Gonzalez resigned his board seat in December; his replacement will be decided by Temecula voters later this year.

The policies have caused division in the district and sparked several student-led protests and contentious governing board meetings. Mae M. v. Komrosky was brought forward in August by a coalition of students, teachers and parents.

Friday's ruling is in 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 ruling bolstered California Attorney General Rob Bonta's efforts to overturn the policy that has been adopted by a handful of Golden State school districts, including Murrieta Valley and Temecula Valley.

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 to districts like the CVUSD, MVUSD and TVUSD.

"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, the case continues to wind through the court.

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.