“Unconstitutionally Vague”: Appeals Court Strikes Down CRT Ban in Temecula Schools
1TVPAC TEAM
TEMECULA — In a decisive legal rebuke, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal has overturned the Temecula Valley Unified School District’s 2022 resolution banning Critical Race Theory (CRT), calling the policy “unconstitutionally vague” and ordering a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement.
The court found that the resolution—championed by school board member and logic professor Joseph Komrosky—failed to define key terms such as “CRT” and “similar frameworks,” leaving educators uncertain what they could or could not teach. Teachers testified that the vague language led them to self-censor or omit state-mandated instruction on civil rights, race, and social justice for fear of violating the policy.
No Evidence CRT Was Ever Taught
Critically, the district conceded during oral arguments that no evidence existed showing CRT or any of the banned concepts were ever taught in Temecula schools. Nevertheless, the policy was aggressively pushed by the then-board majority—Komrosky, Jennifer Wiersma, and Danny Gonzales—over objections from fellow board members and community members.
Legal Defeat: Public Funds Wasted on Attorney’s Costs
In its strongly worded opinion, the appellate court wrote, “We reverse the trial court’s order as to the Resolution and remand for the court to issue a preliminary injunction,” meaning that the district cannot enforce the resolution. As the prevailing party, plaintiffs were also awarded legal costs—meaning that the district (in other words, Temecula taxpayers) must now cover the plaintiffs’ attorney fees.
Komrosky argued that the resolution was clear, citing “precising definitions.” The court rejected this as circular reasoning, stating, “The Resolution is not sufficiently definite just because a Board member who enacted it stated as much.”
One provision in particular drew scrutiny: it allowed teachers to reference CRT only to highlight its “flaws.” But when questioned during oral arguments, the district’s attorney merely reiterated the same 13 banned concepts—essentially restating the resolution’s prohibitions.
“This is circular,” the justices wrote. “If we adopt counsel’s interpretation, then an educator can teach the prohibited concepts and elements if they focus on the prohibited concepts and elements.”
Historical Ignorance Undermines Defense
In a moment that drew sharp criticism from the bench, the district’s appellate attorney referred to “Jim Crow” as “a civil rights individual”—a glaring factual error that underscored what the court viewed as a fundamental misunderstanding of U.S. history.
The justices clarified that “Jim Crow was not a “historical figure,” but a pejorative term referring to a Black man, derived from a musical caricature of a Black man played by a white man in blackface.”
The gaffe speaks volumes about the lack of quality of representation the district is receiving in defense of the resolution and it’s hiring of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, based in Murrieta and led by Attorney Robert Tyler.
The court emphasized the gap between the district’s justifications and the impact on educators, who reported being pressured to revise or eliminate lessons aligned with state educational standards.
Broader Significance and Call to Action
This ruling halts enforcement of the CRT ban and sends a clear message to school districts across California and the country: vague ideological resolutions that infringe on constitutional rights will not survive judicial review.
A separate legal challenge to a now-rescinded parental notification policy was dismissed as moot due to changes in state law.
In light of this decision, the Temecula Valley Unified School District is under growing pressure to formally rescind the 2022 CRT resolution. Continuing to defend a legally indefensible and unnecessary policy not only wastes taxpayer money but also distracts from the district’s core responsibility: delivering a high-quality education to all students.
Read the full court opinion here:
