The California Court of Appeals ruled that when a lawsuit is filed in the California court system, the Tim Curla School District must immediately put its injunction on key racial theories.
The Temecula Valley Education Commission adopted a resolution prohibiting its critical racial theory defined as December 2022. The field of critical racial theory (broadly known as CRT) examines the extent to which racial inequality and racism are systematically embedded in American institutions.
A group of parents, students and teachers seek preliminary bans to block law enforcement of conservative school board policies, accusing the topic of bans partly “unconstitutional” and confusing and intimidating teachers about things they can discuss in class.
The three panel of judges in the Fourth Appeal District said there was good reason to suspend the policy.
“The district teachers knew the extreme effects of what the solution prohibited and fear, without guardrails, and even suffered greatly from accidental violations,” wrote Judge Kathleen E. O’Leary.
She added that the resolution “defines CRT as “a separatist ideology that assigns moral faults to individuals based solely on the race of an individual and is therefore a racist ideology in itself. “The resolution is as generally accepted as the definition, but the text does not indicate where this definition is derived, or whether the definition is shared with someone outside the board of directors.
The district’s attorney noted that Monday’s ruling was a preliminary injunction and the case is yet to be heard.
“Although we are disappointed with the court’s ruling, we remain committed to defending the constitutionality of the actions of the unified school district in Temecula Valley.” “Critical race theory and its branches have no place in public institutions and are designed to serve all individuals. These ideas promote schizophrenia, resentment, and distorted views on history that punish students and employees based on skin color rather than personality.”
“We remain committed to defending the legitimate policy of rejecting this racialized thinking, but rather promoting solidarity and equal treatment under the law,” she said.
Amanda Mangaser Savage, a public legal counsel seeking the injunction, noted that this was largely because the appeals court concluded that she would likely have the upper hand over the school district.
“The court’s ruling has given the board a review of accurate information on U.S. history, which puts Temecula students at a huge disadvantage compared to their peers across the state,” Mangaser Savage said.
Allies of Temecula’s board of directors provide nearly the opposite analysis.
“Racism, subversive, harmful and false ideology against children not only violates long-term anti-discrimination civil rights laws, but also usurps the authority of basic parents,” said Julie Hamill, an attorney representing the California Center for Policy.
The project also adopted an anti-CRT policy or resolution that adopted an anti-CRT policy or resolution by the end of 2024, according to the UCLA Law School tracking program.
The Appeals Panel reversed the ruling of trial court judge Eric Keen, who denied demanding a stop to the policy. In his eight-page ruling, Keane rejected the argument that the ban was not yet clear, and concluded that Board of Directors’ resolutions List specific elements that cannot be taught.
“For the court, a person with ordinary intelligence seems to have a reasonable opportunity to know that the forbidden things are specifically provided in the resolution,” he wrote.
But the appeals team saw a completely different situation.
The Court of Appeal accepted the plaintiff’s argument that the resolution “failed to issue public notice of prohibited conduct and lacked sufficient standards for determining the application, which led to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
Therefore, the Temecula policy “is ostensibly unconstitutional because it adopts ambiguous language, lacks definition, unclear scope, seems irreconcilable with the educational requirements prescribed by the state, and does not include law enforcement guidelines,” O’Leary wrote.
“Teachers are taken to self-censorship and have the potential to overcorrect, depriving students of informed education and further exacerbating teachers’ discomfort in the classroom,” the justice wrote.
Another part of the lawsuit involves the board’s policy of notifying parents about issues related to the student’s gender identity. The panel said the issue no longer works because state law prohibits this automatic notification policy – prioritizing students’ privacy rights.
However, this month, the school board will discuss potential options to restore as many notice policies as possible.
The Trump administration has developed policies that can echo critical race theory and the policies of the Temikula school system notified by parents.
The administration threatens to withhold federal funds from state and school systems that do not comply with Trump’s policies and executive orders. California, in turn, has challenged these policies and threats in a state-led court. General Rob Bonta also supported the legal challenge against the unity of Temecula Valley.
“As the appeal decision recognized, the curriculum resolution has grown dramatically, including courses that could be interpreted as prohibiting courses on discriminatory Jim Crow laws, segregation, racial inequality in the criminal justice system, and civil rights movement,” Bonta’s statement said.
Melinda Anderson, chairman of the Temecula school board, said the district has not yet decided whether to appeal the ban.
She said it would be challenging to make the injunction in line with the appeals court ruling, adding that she was speaking for herself rather than for school districts or other board members.
“This will require precise language, aligning with the nationally prescribed curriculum, a clear and fair enforcement process and full transparency,” Anderson said. “I also recommend sunbathing with the teacher union to ensure cooperation, legal compliance and avoid future disputes.”
She added: “The Trump administration has similar goals in restricting the concepts related to CRT in the federal program … However, the federal view does not cover California’s education laws or courts.”
Conservative leaders of Temecula’s school system repeatedly objected to the state’s more liberal policies, sometimes having to go back.
In one episode, the board rejected a state-approved social studies course that referenced gay rights activist Harvey Milk but then reversed.
The reversal was followed by a series of controversial public meetings and threats from Gov. Gavin Newsom, with a $1.5 million fine if the district does not provide its elementary school students with new state-approved books on social studies.
