New York Attorney General Letitia James is facing a federal lawsuit after she and State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa sent a May guidance letter telling school boards to police public comment on transgender issues — even warning that board members who allow certain speech could be removed from office. Plaintiffs led by Massapequa board chair Kerry Wachter argue the letter is a blatant attempt to chill debate on policies that affect students’ safety and privacy.
The guidance warned boards not to tolerate comments that “demean and stigmatize LGBTQ+ students,” and instructed officials that permitting such speech could expose districts to liability and even provide grounds for removal. That May 8 letter explicitly told boards to shut down “baseless allegations” about transgender students and to stop intentional misgendering during public meetings. Critics say the language is vague by design and gives bureaucrats a cudgel to silence dissent.
Plaintiffs say the guidance has already produced concrete chilling effects: board members report being advised to mute or dismiss speakers who raise concerns about boys in girls’ facilities or competing on girls’ teams, and parents fear speaking up at their own local meetings. When reporters sought comment, James’ office declined to respond to questions about the lawsuit and the apparent attempt to muzzle parents and elected school board members. The controversy even drew attention on national cable shows where panelists dissected the constitutional stakes.
This isn’t a harmless bit of administrative advice — it’s viewpoint discrimination dressed up as protection. The Southeastern Legal Foundation and legal commentators argue the guidance coerces elected officials to curate speech and punishes dissenting viewpoints, a textbook violation of the First Amendment that federal courts have increasingly recognized. If state officials can quietly strip local boards of their ability to hear from constituents, our civic foundations begin to collapse.
Beyond the legalese, the practical effect is alarming: vague standards about what counts as “harassment” or “demeaning” speech give school bureaucrats and activist lawyers license to silence ordinary parents who raise commonsense concerns about privacy, safety, and fairness in school sports. This is the same bureaucratic overreach conservatives have warned about — unelected officials overriding locally elected boards to impose ideological litmus tests on public forums. Local control and free speech are not optional depending on who holds office in Albany.
The plaintiffs are asking the court for a declaration that the guidance is unconstitutional and an injunction to stop James and Rosa from enforcing it, along with nominal damages. Courts should reject policymakers who attempt to weaponize vague harassment rules to silence opposing viewpoints rather than engage in the marketplace of ideas. The rule of law demands clear standards, not carte blanche for political actors to cancel citizens who disagree.
Letitia James’ silence when asked to defend the letter speaks volumes — it’s the behavior of a politician more interested in policing speech than answering for her conduct. Americans who value free expression should be alarmed when an attorney general treats elected boards and parents as obstacles rather than constituents. The courts now have the chance to reaffirm that public meetings belong to the people, not to bureaucrats who prefer to decide which views are worthy of being heard.
