Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Crt Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public speakers urge board to end legal fight over resolution banning critical race theory after appeals court finds it vague
Summary
Multiple members of the public urged Temecula Valley Unified trustees May 27 to rescind the board resolution banning critical race theory, terminate a contract with Advocates for Faith and Freedom and stop spending district funds on litigation after an appeals court ruled the resolution too vague to enforce.
Multiple members of the public urged the Temecula Valley Unified board during public comment May 27 to stop defending a board resolution that banned critical race theory (CRT) and to end the district’s contract with Advocates for Faith and Freedom (AFF), the outside law firm the board retained to defend the resolution.
Why it matters: the dispute touches district legal spending, board governance and curriculum oversight. Several speakers described the resolution as unnecessary, legally vulnerable and costly; the court of appeal recently found the resolution unconstitutionally vague on its face, a ruling speakers cited in urging the board to take new steps.
What public speakers said - Multiple commenters said CRT had never been taught or planned in district classrooms and argued the December 2022 resolution (commonly labeled Resolution 21 in public comments) was unnecessary and hastily adopted by a previous board majority. One commenter said the policy was “not battle tested” and that similar policies in other districts were not enforced and therefore not litigated. - Speakers criticized the district’s choice of outside counsel. Several public speakers alleged a conflict of interest in the district’s 2023 contract with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, arguing the firm has political ties and that the contract contained clauses that lock the district into paying fees even if the district later chose to end the relationship. Apneet Dhaliwal told the board, “The contract locked the district into pursuing defense to the Supreme Court and paying AFF all fees if the district ever settled, refused to appeal, or fired AFF.” - Call to action: speakers urged the board to rescind Resolution 21, terminate the AFF contract, hire independent counsel and refocus district funds on classrooms and facilities. One comment said the board should “start spending our money on students’ education” instead of litigation.
Board context and history (as stated by public commenters) - Several speakers said the resolution was hurried through by newly seated trustees in December 2022 without adequate staff input or legal review. Commenters asserted that earlier trustees urged a more deliberative process but were overridden at the initial vote. - Public commenters pointed to the August 2023 contract with AFF and to subsequent legal fees the district incurred to defend the resolution. Commenters said the district had spent a substantial amount on legal defense and that the litigation produced limited educational benefit.
Formal actions and status - The court of appeal issued an opinion finding the resolution insufficiently specific to be enforced; speakers said this undermines the basis for continued defense of the policy. At the May 27 meeting the board did not take a new vote on Resolution 21 during open session; public speakers urged that the board rescind the resolution and terminate the AFF contract.
Closing note: speakers framed their requests as both fiscal and educational priorities — urging the board to limit legal expenses and to refocus on curriculum review and school needs. The board did not announce any immediate change to legal strategy on the record during the May 27 open session.
