New York Attorney General Letitia James is facing a federal lawsuit alleging that her office violated the First Amendment by threatening to remove elected school board members who allow public discussion about transgender students’ participation in girls’ locker rooms and sports. The complaint, filed by a coalition of parents and school officials represented by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, focuses on a guidance letter James’ office issued earlier this year. The letter warned that board members who “demean or stigmatize” LGBTQ+ students — or permit similar remarks at public meetings — could be removed under the state’s Dignity for All Students Act. It specifically referenced disputes involving comments opposing transgender students’ use of bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams matching their gender identity.
Plaintiffs argue the directive was not viewpoint-neutral and effectively silenced parents, students, and officials who disagreed with transgender-inclusion policies in girls’ spaces. Massapequa School Board Chair Kerry Wachter said James’ office told her she must cut off speakers who raised concerns about biological males accessing girls’ facilities. Wachter emphasized that no individual students were identified during meetings and that the comments reflected girls’ personal discomfort. The lawsuit claims the attorney general’s guidance chilled protected speech by threatening punitive action against officials who simply permitted dissenting views to be expressed.
Attorney Kim Hermann of the Southeastern Legal Foundation argued that the restrictions were selectively applied, allowing supportive comments about transgender inclusion while suppressing opposing perspectives. The lawsuit comes amid ongoing disputes in suburban districts, including after Massapequa adopted a policy requiring students to use facilities based on biological sex — a decision that prompted litigation from the New York Civil Liberties Union.
The plaintiffs warn that the attorney general’s threat of removal, and the financial burden of even unsuccessful proceedings, amounts to state-driven censorship. They argue that James’ guidance sets a dangerous precedent by using anti-discrimination laws to restrict speech at local government meetings. James’ office has not yet responded to the lawsuit, which poses a significant constitutional challenge to how New York enforces LGBTQ+ policies within public schools.