New York Attorney General Letitia James is facing mounting backlash from school boards and parents over state guidance regarding transgender student policies that opponents say stifles open discussion and sidelines privacy and safety concerns for all students.
In recent days, the Massapequa Union Free School District board on Long Island, New York along with other school boards and parent plaintiffs, filed a federal lawsuit alleging James’s May guidance letter crosses constitutional lines by threatening to remove elected board members who allow public discussions at meetings about transgender policies, including concerns over biological males in female locker rooms and bathrooms. The lawsuit argues the guidance violates board members’ free speech rights and prevents parents and students from raising safety concerns. WRGB
DHS demands Letitia James take action over New York’s refusal to honor ICE detainers:
The Department of Homeland Security is calling on New York Attorney General Letita James to take action against New York City over its handling of illegal immigrants.
… https://t.co/NYju7Lj6na
— Elwin Sidney (@ElwinSidney) December 2, 2025
The guidance, issued jointly by James and State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa, instructed school boards to enforce statewide protections under the Dignity for All Students Act, which prohibits harassment and discrimination against students based on gender identity. The letter stated that allowing discriminatory or harassing comments — including speech questioning transgender students’ identities or rights to use certain facilities — could expose districts to liability and justify removal of board members for neglecting their duties.
Opponents contend the restrictions amount to censorship. “They’re saying if we allow this discussion in our board meetings, she can come in and remove us from the board,” Massapequa Board Chair Kerry Wachter told reporters. Wachter and other plaintiffs say their intent was not to single out individual transgender students but to address broader concerns about privacy, safety and the rights of all students — including girls who feel discomfort or fear sharing locker rooms or bathrooms with biological males.
Good, I hope they win ~ ~ New York parents sue AG Letitia James over crackdown on anti-trans speech at school board meetings https://t.co/tcQBXPOd94 pic.twitter.com/GQ3weVdiLT
— Mary (@matjendav4) December 11, 2025
Legal filings maintain that board members should be allowed to hear from parents and students about their experiences and fears without fear of official retaliation. Critics argue that robust debate is vital to protect all students’ rights, including girls’ rights to privacy in sex-segregated spaces they historically and legally expect to remain private.
While the lawsuit focuses on speech rights, it also reflects wider community tensions around school policies on transgender students. Similar debates have arisen nationwide, including in Virginia where the U.S. Department of Justice recently sued a school board over locker room policies, claiming that those policies violated students’ constitutional rights by compelling them to accept gender ideology that conflicts with their beliefs.
In New York, parents have previously raised concerns about locker room privacy. A mother in the Webster Central School District recounted at a school board meeting that her daughter and classmates were “extremely” uncomfortable with a transgender student using the girls’ locker room, and expressed frustration that administrators allegedly advised them to seek privacy in stalls or areas behind curtains rather than addressing the underlying issue.
School districts are theoretically required to balance non-discrimination protections with privacy rights. New York law, including the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act and the state’s Dignity for All Students Act, prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and protects students from harassment. Opponents of James’s guidance argue, however, that enforcing those laws should not prevent open public discourse about how they are applied locally.
The dispute has accelerated broader national conversations about how schools create policies that accommodate transgender students while also protecting the privacy and dignity of others. Supporters of James’s guidance argue it ensures LGBTQ+ students are safeguarded from harassment and discrimination, pointing to legal precedents affirming transgender students’ rights to access bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.
Critics, including the Southeastern Legal Foundation, warn that restricting speech at school board meetings suppresses legitimate concerns from parents and undermines public accountability. They argue that free discussion of education policy — including how schools handle gender identity issues — should remain open and not subject to threats of removal or censorship.
The legal battle is just beginning. School boards, parents and civil liberties plaintiffs are asking a federal court to block enforcement of the state’s guidance and to affirm that public officials cannot be stripped of office for permitting debate on these sensitive topics. With tensions high and litigation underway, the balance between protecting student rights and ensuring open dialogue in public education remains at the center of a growing national debate.
