Appeals court halts Temecula school district ban on critical race theory
- Share via
- An appeals court has issued a temporary injunction, ordering the Temecula school district to halt its ban on critical race theory.
- The court said the district’s policy is unconstitutionally vague and made teachers fearful.
- An attorney for the district said the fight will continue against an academic topic that breeds division.
A California appeals court has ruled that the Temecula school district must immediately set aside its ban on critical race theory while litigation over it plays out in the California court system.
The Temecula Valley Board of Education adopted the resolution prohibiting what it defined as critical race theory in December 2022. The field of critical race theory, known widely as CRT, examines the extent to which racial inequality and racism are systemically embedded in American institutions.
A group of parents, students and teachers had sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the conservative school board’s policy, alleging the ban on the topic, in part, was “unconstitutionally vague” and has confused and intimidated teachers about what they could discuss in class.
A three-judge panel for the 4th Appellate District said there was ample reason to put the policy on hold.
“District teachers have experienced anxiety and confusion in knowing what is prohibited by the Resolution and fear extreme repercussions without guardrails for even accidental violations,” Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary wrote.
A high school ethnic studies requirement was to take effect in the fall, but a lack of funding — and antisemitism allegations — appear likely to derail it.
She added that the resolution “defined CRT as ‘a divisive ideology that assigns moral fault to individuals solely on the basis of an individual’s race and, therefore, is itself a racist ideology.’ The Resolution operates as if this definition is universally accepted, but the text does not indicate where this definition is derived, or whether it is shared with anyone else besides the Board. This definition seems to represent the Board’s subjective perception of CRT.”
An attorney for the school district noted that the Monday ruling is a preliminary injunction and the case has yet to be heard on its merits.
“Although we are disappointed with the court’s decision, we remain committed to defending the constitutionality of Temecula Valley Unified School District’s actions,” Julianne E. Fleischer said. “Critical race theory and its offshoots have no place in public institutions that are meant to serve all individuals equally. These ideas promote division, resentment, and a distorted view of history that punishes students and staff based on skin color rather than character.”
“We remain committed to defending lawful policies that reject this kind of racialized thinking and instead promote unity and equal treatment under the law,” she said.
A judge denied a request from parents and others for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the district’s policy prohibiting teaching critical race theory.
Amanda Mangaser Savage, a Public Counsel attorney who sought the injunction, noted that it was granted, in large part, because the appeals court concluded her side is likely to prevail against the school district.
“The court’s decision puts a stop to the board’s censorship of accurate information about American history, which placed Temecula students at a tremendous disadvantage relative to their peers across the state,” Mangaser Savage said.
An ally of the Temecula board offered a near opposite analysis.
“Imprinting racist, subversive, harmful and false ideologies on children not only violates longstanding anti-discrimination civil rights law in many cases, but also usurps basic parental authority,” said Julie Hamill, an attorney representing California Policy Center, which had submitted a legal brief in support of the Temecula school board.
Six other California school systems have adopted anti-CRT policies or resolutions, according to a UCLA Law School tracking project that was active through the end of 2024.
In its action, the appeals panel reversed the ruling of trial court Judge Eric Keen, who had denied a request to halt the policy. In his eight-page ruling, Keen had rejected the argument that the ban was unclear, concluding that the board’s resolution set out the specific elements that can’t be taught.
“It seems clear to the court that a person of ordinary intelligence would have a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited as what is prohibited is set out specifically in the resolution,” he wrote.
But the appeals panel saw things completely differently.
The appeals court accepted the arguments from the plaintiffs that the resolution “fails to provide fair notice of the conduct proscribed and lacks sufficient definite standards of application, which leads to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
Therefore, the Temecula policy is “unconstitutionally vague on its face because it employs ambiguous language, lacks definitions, is unclear in scope, is seemingly irreconcilable with state-mandated educational requirements, and contains no enforcement guidelines,” O’Leary wrote.
“Teachers are left to self-censor and potentially over-correct, depriving the students of a fully informed education and further exacerbating the teachers’ discomfort in the classroom,” the justice wrote.
A separate part of the lawsuit dealt with the board’s policy of notifying parents about issues related to a student’s gender identity. The panel said that issue was no longer in play because state law prohibits such automatic notification policies — prioritizing instead the privacy rights of the student.
The new law shields teachers from retaliation for supporting transgender students and prohibits school policies that require “forced disclosure” of youth gender decisions to their families.
This month, however, the school board will be discussing potential options to reinstate as much of the notification policy as possible.
The Trump administration has policies that echo those of the Temecula school system on both critical race theory and parent notification.
The administration has threatened to withhold federal funding from states and school systems that don’t abide by Trump policies and executive orders. California, in turn, has challenged these policies and threats in court, led by state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who also supported the legal challenge against Temecula Valley Unified.
“As the appellate decision recognizes, the Curriculum Resolution was dramatically overbroad, including provisions that could be construed to bar lessons about discriminatory Jim Crow laws, segregation, racial inequalities in the criminal justice system, and the civil rights movement,” Bonta’s statement said.
Temecula school board President Melinda Anderson said the district has not yet decided whether it will appeal the injunction.
Making the ban comply with the leaning of the appeals court ruling would be challenging, she said, adding that she was speaking only for herself and not for the school district or other board members.
“It would require precise language, alignment with state-mandated curriculum, a clear and fair enforcement process and full transparency,” Anderson said. “I would also recommend sunshining any proposed version with the teachers union to ensure collaboration, legal compliance, and to avoid future disputes.”
She added: “The Trump administration shares similar goals in restricting CRT-related concepts in federal programs... However, federal views don’t override California’s education laws or courts.”
The conservative leadership of the Temecula school system has pushed back repeatedly against the state’s more liberal policies — and sometimes had to backtrack.
In one episode, the board rejected a state-sanctioned social studies curriculum that mentioned gay rights activist Harvey Milk but then reversed course.
The reversal followed a series of contentious public meetings and a threat by Gov. Gavin Newsom to fine the district $1.5 million if it did not provide its elementary school students with new state-approved social studies books.
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In Season 2 of “Crimes of the Times,” host Christopher Goffard revisits one of the longest and most bizarre murder trials in U.S. history.
On this week’s bonus, Madison McGhee and Jake Deptula share some of their more controversial takes on today’s true crime beat.
Sammy Roth visits America’s second-largest nuclear plant, Arizona’s Palo Verde Generating Station, and sits down with three experts to explore the pros and cons of atomic energy.
