School board members in New York are taking a stand against what they call heavy-handed tactics by Attorney General Letitia James. Their federal lawsuit claims she’s trying to silence debate on trans athletes in girls’ sports and locker rooms with threats of removal from office.
James issued a guidance letter that warned of ousting any board member who misuses pronouns for trans students or permits public discussion of concerns about trans athletes using facilities not aligned with their biological sex, as reported by Fox News.
The lawsuit, filed by members including Massapequa Union Free School District Board Chair Kerry Wachter, argues this stifles free speech at board meetings. Wachter herself was directed to mute or dismiss speakers who voice opposition to these policies, a move she finds chilling to open dialogue.
Wachter didn’t hold back in her frustration, telling Fox News Digital, “They're saying if we allow this discussion in our board meetings, she can come in and remove us from the board.” If elected officials can’t even host a forum for community concerns without fear of being unseated, what’s left of local governance?
The guidance from James’ office, issued in May, cites the need to protect LGBTQ+ students under state law, specifically the Dignity for All Students Act. Yet, plaintiffs argue it’s being wielded as a club to crush any dissent, particularly when female students and parents express unease about shared spaces with biological males.
A snippet from James’ letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, reads, “Unfortunately, some board members have made, and encouraged, comments during board meetings that demean and stigmatize LGBTQ+ students.” Such language paints honest policy debate as personal attack, a framing that seems designed to shut down rather than engage.
The Massapequa district became a flashpoint after adopting a policy in September requiring students to use restrooms and locker rooms based on biological sex. This sparked a separate lawsuit from the New York Civil Liberties Union, showing just how contentious the issue has grown.
Across the state, testimonies from girls and parents about discomfort in shared facilities have gained traction, often going viral and fueling broader scrutiny of progressive mandates. In Democrat-leaning areas especially, these voices are pushing back against policies they see as prioritizing ideology over practical fairness.
Southeastern Legal Foundation Attorney Kim Hermann pointed out a glaring double standard, saying to Fox News Digital, “If a transgender activist or an LGBTQ activist [speaks in favor], they can say anything they want… but anyone who disagrees with them cannot speak at these meetings anymore.” When one side gets a megaphone and the other a gag, that’s not equality—it’s control.
Hermann further argued that state laws like DASA don’t trump the First Amendment, which protects public debate at school board meetings. She insists that threatening removal of duly elected officials for allowing such discussion is a clear overreach by James’ office.
The lawsuit also names other plaintiffs, including Danielle Ciampino of the Rotterdam-Mohonasen Central School District Board, and parents Sarah Rouse and Issac Kuo from Rockville Centre. Their collective grievance underscores a growing tension between state authority and local voices on deeply personal issues.
James’ letter warned that even an unsuccessful bid for removal could burden schools financially and distract from their core mission. Such a statement reads less like guidance and more like a veiled threat to keep dissenters in line.
As this legal battle unfolds, the core question remains how to safeguard all students while preserving the right to question policy. For many parents and board members, the focus should be on hearing out girls who feel their privacy is compromised, without labeling their concerns as hate.
James’ office has been contacted for comment, but the lawsuit already paints a picture of an administration more interested in enforcing a singular viewpoint than fostering real conversation. If elected officials can’t facilitate honest debate without fear of reprisal, the very foundation of community input crumbles.
This case isn’t just about locker rooms or sports teams; it’s about whether the state can dictate the boundaries of public discourse. For those who value free expression and local control, the fight in Massapequa is a line in the sand worth watching.
