Does New York’s AG Have the Power to “Silence” Parents? A School Board President Sues Letitia James

A school board president on Long Island has filed a federal lawsuit against one of the most powerful officials in New York State, accusing Attorney General Letitia James of using her office to threaten and silence local elected officials.

The conflict centers on a guidance letter regarding “harassment and bullying” at school board meetings, but the underlying issue is a profound constitutional battle over the First Amendment rights of parents and board members to debate controversial topics.

This is not just a local dispute over school policy. It is a collision between the state’s duty to protect students from discrimination and the constitutional right to free expression in the public square.

It forces us to ask: When does a heated debate over gender policy cross the line into unlawful harassment, and who gets to decide?

What Does the Attorney General’s Letter Say?

The lawsuit stems from a May 8th guidance letter issued jointly by Attorney General James and State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa. The letter warned school boards that they have a legal duty to prevent the harassment of LGBTQ+ students during meetings.

Crucially, the letter stated that board members who “condone discriminatory or harassing comments” – potentially including arguments against transgender students using facilities that match their gender identity – could be removed from office for neglecting their duty.

The AG’s office framed this as a necessary step to protect students’ rights under state law.

The Constitutional Counter-Argument: Free Speech or Harassment?

The plaintiffs, led by Massapequa School Board Chair Kerry Wachter, argue that this guidance is unconstitutional censorship. Their lawsuit claims the letter forces board members to “self-censor and shut down parent speech that advocates for their core values.”

This is a classic First Amendment conflict. In a public forum like a school board meeting, citizens have a broad right to petition their government and express their views, even if those views are offensive to others. The Supreme Court has generally held that “harassment” must be severe and pervasive to lose constitutional protection.

The plaintiffs argue that labeling policy disagreements – such as supporting sex-separated sports teams – as “harassment” is a way for the state to silence a specific viewpoint.

They are asking the court to declare the guidance unconstitutional and issue an injunction to stop its enforcement.

The Federalism Twist

Adding to the complexity is a layer of conflicting mandates. The Massapequa school district had previously passed a policy requiring students to use bathrooms aligning with their biological sex, citing a new executive order from President Trump.

This puts the local school board in a constitutional vice grip. They are caught between a federal executive order that defines sex based on biology and state laws that protect gender identity. By suing the Attorney General, the board is not just fighting for free speech; it is seeking clarity in a chaotic legal landscape where following federal guidance might violate state law, and following state law might violate federal policy.

The lawsuit against Letitia James is a significant escalation in the culture wars consuming America’s schools. It is a test of whether state officials can use their regulatory power to police the boundaries of acceptable debate in local government, and whether the First Amendment protects the right of school board members to voice opinions that the state has deemed discriminatory.