In December 2022, the Temecula Valley Unified School District Board adopted Resolution No. 2022-23/21 (Resolution), which prohibited district educators from using “Critical Race Theory or other similar frameworks” to guide instruction on race-related topics. The Resolution characterized critical race theory (CRT) as a “divisive ideology” that promotes racial guilt and moral fault based solely on race. It barred the teaching of thirteen concepts: five “elements” of CRT and eight “doctrines derived from CRT,” such as the belief that racism is ordinary, that individuals are inherently racist based on their race, or that meritocracy is a tool of oppression. The Resolution allowed limited instruction about CRT only if it played a subordinate role in the course and focused on “the flaws in CRT.” It did not contain definitions or examples and did not define enforcement procedures for policy violations.
In August 2023, the Board adopted Policy 5020.01. The policy required school staff to notify parents in writing within three days if a student requested to be identified or treated as a gender different from their sex assigned at birth. The policy applied to requests to use different names, pronouns, or gender-specific facilities such as bathrooms or locker rooms.
In October 2023, the Temecula Valley Educators Association, along with individual students, teachers, and parents, filed suit against the District and five members of the Board. Plaintiffs brought ten causes of action under the California and U.S. Constitutions and the California Education Code. They alleged that the CRT Resolution was unconstitutionally vague, chilled protected classroom speech, and conflicted with state instructional mandates. They also alleged that the gender identity policy violated students’ constitutional rights, including equal protection and privacy rights.
In November 2023, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the District from enforcing the CRT Resolution and Policy 5020.01. The trial court denied the motion and Plaintiffs appealed.
While the appeal was pending, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1955, which prohibits schools from requiring staff to disclose a student’s gender identity without the student’s consent. In response, the Board rescinded Policy 5020.01. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as to the gender identity policy as moot, but proceeded to evaluate the constitutionality of the CRT Resolution.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the CRT Resolution. It held that the Resolution was unconstitutionally vague and that the balance of harms favored granting relief. The Court of Appeal found that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Resolution was unconstitutionally vague. The Resolution banned “Critical Race Theory or other similar frameworks” without explaining what those terms meant. It listed five “elements” and eight “doctrines” derived from CRT but failed to clarify how teachers should apply those prohibitions in practice. The Resolution gave no examples, no definitions, and offered no guidance about how it intersected with the state-mandated curriculum. Teachers submitted evidence that they could not tell whether their lessons violated the Resolution, especially when teaching topics that California’s education standards require, such as systemic racism, civil rights history, and implicit bias.
The Court of Appeal also noted that the Resolution contained no enforcement procedures. It did not explain how the District would handle reports of violations or what penalties might apply. Teachers testified that they feared being disciplined, even fired, for unintentionally violating the policy. To avoid that risk, many had censored or removed content, abandoned core texts, or avoided answering student questions about race and inequality. The Court of Appeal found that this uncertainty chilled classroom speech and denied teachers fair notice of what the policy prohibited.
The Court of Appeal also found that the trial court ignored strong evidence of harm to Plaintiffs. Teachers described ongoing confusion, stress, and fear about how to comply with both state standards and the Resolution. They said they had changed how they taught or avoided topics entirely. The trial court refused to weigh those harms and relied instead on a general rule that enjoining a government policy causes irreparable harm. The Court of Appeal rejected that reasoning. It found no evidence that the District would suffer harm if the trial court issued an injunction, especially since the District had not shown that any of the banned concepts had ever been taught in its schools.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and directed it to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the CRT Resolution. It dismissed the appeal involving the gender identity policy as moot.
Mae M. v. Komrosky, 111 Cal. App. 5th 198 (2025).