The California Court of Appeal issued a decision in Mae M. v. Komrosky, No. G064332 (Cal. Ct. App., May 19, 2025), reversing a trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against a board resolution passed by the Temecula Valley Unified School District.  The Resolution, enacted by the District’s board in December 2022, banned the use of “Critical Race Theory or other similar frameworks” in classroom instruction.  The Resolution listed five “elements of [CRT]” and eight “doctrines derived from [CRT]” which educators were prohibited from teaching. 

Teachers, their union, students, and parents, brought suit against the District and its governing board. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to halt implementation of the Resolution.  The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ request; however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case back to the trial court to issue the preliminary injunction.  

More specifically, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s holding that the District’s Resolution was unconstitutionally vague on its face, as it employed ambiguous language, lacked proper definitions, was unclear in scope, contained no enforcement guidelines, and was “seemingly irreconcilable” with California’s state-mandated educational requirements, including the requirement to provide instruction in areas such as civil rights, social justice, and ethnic studies. 

In balancing the potential harm to the parties, the court found significant evidence that the vagueness of the Resolution harmed educators by placing them in the untenable position of not knowing how to comply with their obligation to teach state-mandated curriculum and their obligation not to violate the Resolution.   The court held that “Clear examples [of how CRT intersects with school curriculum] could have made the Board’s definition of CRT more understandable. 

The Appellate Court found the trial court abused its discretion because it reached the incorrect conclusion that the Resolution did not violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and ignored plaintiffs’ evidence documenting the District teachers’ ongoing harm.