Thursday, October 1, 2026
An official from the Massapequa Board of Education and two parents with children in the Rockville Centre school district are at the forefront of a federal lawsuit claiming New York Attorney General Letitia James of silencing parents and school officials who question policies involving transgender students, particularly those related to athletics and access to school facilities.
The complaint, filed on Dec. 9 in federal court by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, argues that James overstepped her authority when she warned school boards in a May 8 guidance letter that public discussion of transgender students could violate privacy laws.
“Bard members who willfully make unlawful disclosures of confidential student information learned in the course of their official duties may be subject to removal,” the letter stated.
The letter advised districts that board members who allow or participate in such discussions — or who use pronouns that differ from a student’s stated preference — could face removal or other disciplinary action.
“School boards should not entertain baseless allegations that transgender students’ identities and experiences are illegitimate, or that their mere presence in school spaces and participation in school activities is harmful to other students–a practice that, according to research, leads to feelings of stigmatization and emotional harm, including anxiety, depression, and stress," the letter stated.
Plaintiffs include Massapequa Board of Education President Kerry Wachter, two parents from the Rockville Centre school district — Sarah Rouse and Issac Kuo — additional Long Island residents and upstate Rotterdam-Mohonasen board member Danielle Ciampino. They say the attorney general’s warning has chilled public participation at school board meetings and forced officials to choose between speaking openly about policy and risking their elected positions.
"The state is simply trying to shutdown discussion, " Wachter said. "they want to say that this is the law, that's how we interpret it and that's it. I think that prohibiting discussion like this is anthetical to our constitutional rights that we enjoy as citizens of this country."
The lawsuit contends that James’ directive amounts to viewpoint discrimination, alleging that state officials allow supportive statements about transgender policies but discourage or penalize dissenting opinions.
Wachter has said the guidance has been widely interpreted as a threat: an instruction to fall in line with state positions or potentially lose one’s seat. She described the state’s approach as heavy-handed, arguing that parents and board members should be free to raise concerns about locker room access, student safety and athletic competition.
James’ office said the May letter was meant to remind districts of their obligations under the state’s Dignity for All Students Act and other anti-discrimination statutes. Those laws classify transgender students as a protected group and require school districts to prevent bullying, harassment and other unequal treatment.
The letter emphasized that withholding services, allowing discriminatory comments or failing to create an inclusive environment could expose districts to legal liability.
James has declined to comment on the lawsuit.
But the plaintiffs say the directive goes farther than simply reinforcing existing law. According to the complaint, the state is compelling officials to adopt language consistent with James’ interpretation of gender identity while prohibiting discussion that challenges it.
They argue that such restrictions violate First Amendment protections for both elected board members and residents who speak at public meetings.
The Southeastern Legal Foundation, which has represented other clients in speech-related disputes, says the lawsuit reflects a growing conflict over how schools navigate issues of gender identity.
"This is one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment that I have seen in my entire career as a constitutional attorney," Kim Hermann, the attorney for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, said.
The group argues that neither the attorney general nor the Education Department has the authority to remove local officials for permitting protected speech, and it is asking the court to bar the state from enforcing what it calls an unconstitutional policy.
The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
