TVUSD Board Rescinds Anti-CRT Resolution, Ends Legal Fight in Mae v. Komrosky

1TVPAC Team

TEMECULA — In a sweeping reversal, the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) Board voted Tuesday, May 27 to rescind or suspend its controversial 2022 anti-critical race theory (CRT) resolution, a move that effectively ends its defense in the landmark Mae v. Komrosky case.

For a district mired in controversy and costly legal bills since three board members joined the board in December 2022, this decision is seen as a step toward refocusing the board’s attention toward true matters of importance to the district.

The decision came during a tense board meeting where trustees also declined to seek a rehearing of the case. Instead, the board approved the formation of a subcommittee to explore rewording the policy and potentially reintroducing it. But for now, the anti-CRT resolution that once defined the district’s ideological shift is legally and politically dead.

The resolution, initially passed by former board majority members Joseph Komrosky, Jen Wiersma, and now-resigned Danny Gonzalez, banned "critical race theory or other similar frameworks" from being used in the district’s classrooms. However, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal found the policy “unconstitutionally vague on its face,” citing a lack of clear definitions, ambiguous prohibitions, and a chilling effect on teachers’ ability to meet state-mandated educational standards.

In a scathing 38-page published opinion issued May 19, the appellate court ordered the trial court to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcing the resolution. The court concluded that the policy violated educators' due process rights and placed them at risk of arbitrary discipline.

“What is harmful about the status quo should the preliminary injunction issue?” the court asked, pointing to the lack of evidence that CRT had ever been taught in the district. “Defendants’ appellate counsel conceded at oral argument that there is no evidence that any of the Resolution’s enumerated elements or concepts of CRT have ever been taught in District schools.”

The ruling sharply criticized the resolution's vague language, particularly its prohibition of “other similar frameworks” without explaining what they are. Teachers across the district reported confusion and self-censorship, fearing that state-required lessons on civil rights, slavery, and race might trigger disciplinary action under the resolution.

One poignant passage addressed how such ambiguity could silence critical historical discussions:

“Could a teacher be disciplined if their lesson on Jim Crow laws, and still-prevalent contemporary racial issues, causes a student to perceive that ‘[a]n individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race’?” the court asked, highlighting the policy’s potential to deter even fact-based instruction. It added, “Defendants’ appellate counsel stated at oral argument that she believed Jim Crow was ‘a civil rights individual.’”

The court found such confusion “patently absurd” and unconstitutional.

In a separate but related development, TVUSD also resolved its financial obligations to Advocates for Faith and Freedom (AFF), the law firm that represented the board in the case under what was publicly promoted as a “pro bono” agreement. Despite that framing, the agreement included a clause requiring the district to repay fees if the case settled or was lost. Instead of paying the projected six-figure amount, the district reportedly reached a much lower settlement with AFF, avoiding a more costly payout.

The board's decision to suspend the resolution and abandon legal appeals marks a turning point in a bitter chapter for the district. While a subcommittee will explore rewording the resolution, critics note that any revised version will now be scrutinized under the appellate court’s ruling.

“This has been a deeply damaging episode for our community,” said one member of the public, choosing to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. “We were told this was about protecting children from ideology, and that it was ‘Pro Bono,’ but in reality, it was about silencing perspectives and controlling classroom conversations — and could have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep defending an illegal policy.”

For now, the board appears to be retreating from its most controversial stance. The CRT resolution, once hailed by some as a model of “parental rights,” is no longer enforceable, and TVUSD will not pursue further legal arguments in the case.

The appellate ruling, certified for publication, is likely to have statewide implications as other school districts consider similar ideological bans.

Mae v. Komrosky stands as a legal warning: when policies prioritize political messaging over educational clarity and constitutional rights, they risk not just challenge — but defeat.