A California appeals court on Monday ruled that the Temecula Valley Unified School District must immediately cancel a ban on critical race theory during a lawsuit over the policy in state courts.
The school district’s Board of Education voted to ban critical race theory, or CRT in December 2022. The academic framework originated in the 1970s and ’80s and examines the systemic extent of racial inequality and racism in the American legal system and societal institutions.
A three-judge panel overturned a Riverside County Superior Court ruling allowing the CRT ban to continue while the lawsuit plays out.
A group of parents, students and teachers had sought a preliminary injunction, alleging the ban was vague and has confused and intimidated teachers about what is permissible to talk about in classes.
The lawsuit also challenged the TVUSD policy of notifying parents about a student’s gender identity. The appeals court decided that issue was now moot because state law prohibits such automatic notification policies and instead prioritizes students’ privacy rights.
“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 in the court’s May 19 ruling.
The TVUSD resolution establishing the curriculum ban “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.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has closely followed the case.
“Every student deserves the right to feel seen, valued, and welcome in their learning environment,” he aid in a statement following the ruling. “This decision reinforces the principle that all students should have access to inclusive, affirming curricula that reflects the diversity of their communities and the richness of our shared history. And it reaffirms that California law protects the rights of transgender students to live authentically and without fear.”
Bonta added, “Policies that ban inclusive curricula or forcibly out transgender and gender-nonconforming students not only target some of our most vulnerable youth, but also inflict real harm, undermining students’ well-being and academic success.”
TVUSD attorney Julianne Fleischer said the court’s ruling undermines local communities’ right to govern schools.
She said the school board’s policy “is not an attack on history or diversity — it is a reasonable and necessary effort by elected school board members to ensure that curriculum remains fact-based and aligned with community values. The Court’s ruling ignores the intent of the policy: to prevent politicized or ideologically driven materials from replacing objective education.”
Fleischer said once the full facts are presented as the lawsuit proceeds, district officials believe the CRT ban will be upheld.
“Although we are disappointed with the court’s decision, we remain committed to defending the constitutionality of Temecula Valley Unified School District’s actions,” Fleischer said in a statement. “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,” Fleischer added.
Julie Hamill, an attorney for the California Policy Center, which had submitted a legal brief in support of the Temecula school board, told the Times, “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.”
The appeals court found that provisions of the CRT ban could be interpreted to prohibit teachers and students from discussing discriminatory Jim Crow laws, segregation, racial inequities in the criminal justice system and the civil rights movement.
In his appeal filed in October, Bonta argued that the CRT ban violates students’ constitutional rights to freely receive information.
A copy of the decision is online.
