Temecula board approves amended agreement for outside firm to file amicus brief in Supreme Court transgender sports cases

The Temecula Valley Unified School District Governing Board on Sept. 7 approved an amended agreement authorizing the law firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom to prepare and submit an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., two cases raising Title 9 questions about fairness in girls’ athletics.

Board President Dr. Melinda Anderson said the meeting was called to “stand in support of the policies and principles we believe in” and that the idea for the special meeting had been discussed with her about six weeks earlier. After public comment and closed-session consideration, the board reported that it authorized the firm to prepare and file the brief and later approved an amended agreement in open session. The district said the filing will be at no cost to the district.

Why it matters: the cases at issue implicate federal Title 9 protections and debate over participation in school athletics. Board action drew sustained public attention: the special meeting drew 17 public commenters and an extended exchange among trustees about process, transparency and reputational risk.

Public comment. Seventeen members of the public addressed the board, largely split between speakers urging the board to sign the brief and others urging the board to refrain. Jennifer San Nicolas, identified as a resident, said the proposed filing and contract were “a grift” that was “gambling with our kids’ education funds.” Jean Femia, who identified herself as a parent and community member, read contract language aloud and flagged Section 4 and Section 18, quoting, “client will make a good faith effort to help firm raise money to support this cause as well as others,” and noting language that would allow the firm to “issue press releases and speak to the media in relation to client’s case.” Several parents and residents asked why the amicus brief had not been released to the board or the public before the meeting.

Board discussion and contract changes. Board members said the contract had been reviewed and redlined. In open session trustees described two explicit changes: removal of a proposed fundraising obligation and an added clarification that the filing “will be at no cost to the district” and that each party will be responsible for its own costs, including attorney’s fees, related to dispute resolution. Trustee comments also repeatedly raised concerns about process and timing; several trustees said they had not seen the amicus brief before the vote and that the agenda item had been discussed informally in advance.

Votes and formal actions. At the end of a closed session the board reported that it had voted to authorize Advocates for Faith and Freedom to prepare and submit the amicus brief; that motion, the board reported, was moved by Member Melinda Anderson and seconded by Member Jen Wiersma and was “adopted with a vote of 3 present and 2 absent.” In open session the board moved to approve the agreement with Advocates for Faith and Freedom as amended; the motion was adopted in a roll-call vote recorded as three yes votes and two absences.

Process, transparency and community concerns. Multiple speakers — parents, former district employees and longtime residents — criticized the timing of the special meeting (scheduled for 9:01 a.m.) and said the public and some trustees lacked time to review the brief or a redline of the contract before votes. Several speakers argued the district’s regular counsel could have prepared a brief if the board wished to join a filing; others argued the district should not use its name or resources in litigation that they described as ideological. Proponents said joining the brief would be a way for the district to advocate for girls’ athletic fairness under Title 9.

Administrative notes. Board President Anderson read a statement reminding attendees that the Brown Act allows removal of disruptive individuals and that meetings exist primarily to conduct district business. Trustees agreed to post the redlined contract on the board agenda page. The board reported that actions taken in closed session would be disclosed once closed session ended.

Looking ahead. The filing, as reported by the board, will be prepared and submitted by Advocates for Faith and Freedom. The amended agreement and the posted redline will be available on the district’s board agenda page, per trustees’ comments. The board did not specify any further steps for district staff beyond posting the redline and implementing the amended contract language.

Ending note. Trustees and dozens of community members used much of the meeting to debate the district’s role in the national litigation; the board’s action reflects a majority decision by the three trustees present to proceed with the amended agreement and to report that the brief will be filed at no cost to the district.