No Restraining Order Blocking High School Turning Point USA Event, "Two Genders: One Truth"

From Doe v. Albemarle County School Bd., decided yesterday by Judge Jasmine Yoon (W.D. Va.):

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff J. Doe's motion for a temporary restraining order, and motion for a preliminary injunction, both filed on November 17, 2025. Doe requests that the court prohibit Defendant Albemarle County School Board ("the School Board") from allowing the Western Albemarle High School's Turning Point USA club ("TPUSA club") to host Victoria Cobb as a guest speaker for an event titled "Two Genders: One Truth." The event is scheduled for November 19, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. The court held a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order on November 18, 2025. The court finds that Doe has not made a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the "deliberate indifference" element of the Title IX claim. Accordingly, the court will deny Doe's motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction….

While the court recognizes and sympathizes with Doe and their anxiety and distress surrounding the event, … Doe is not able to make a "clear showing that [they are] likely to succeed at trial" on their Title IX claim. A Title IX claim premised on sexual harassment, as here, requires the plaintiff to prove that: "(1) the educational institution receives federal funds; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to harassment based on her sex; (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile (or abusive) environment in an educational program or activity; and (4) there is a basis for imputing liability to the institution."

Under the fourth prong, liability may only be imputed to the institution in cases of deliberate indifference. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that an institution may be liable for third-party harassment "only where [its] response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances." Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (1999). The Davis standard "sets the bar high for deliberate indifference."

Specifically, the Davis Court held that "it would be entirely reasonable for a school to refrain from a form of disciplinary action that would expose it to constitutional or statutory claims." Here, the School Board was exposed to both statutory and constitutional claims after Principal Jennifer Sublette announced her decision to move the original event from lunch to evening. The demand letter—sent from Michael B. Sylvester on behalf of the TPUSA club, sponsoring teacher, and Cobb—delineated these potential claims, which included First Amendment viewpoint discrimination and federal Equal Access Act violations. The letter asked the Board to correct the "unlawful act" "immediately."

While a demand letter with frivolous or empty claims would not suffice to show the School Board's exposure to liability, the First Amendment and Equal Access Act claims raised in this demand letter involve nuanced and sometimes unsettled questions of law. First Amendment protections for school settings established in cases like Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. (1969) … as well as the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination expounded in cases like Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch. (2001), cast doubt on Doe's assertion that permitting the event to proceed was clearly unreasonable….

Although the court does not rule on the merits of any First Amendment or Equal Access Act issues, it recognizes that the School Board weighed the issues arising from this complex area of law while facing potential legal claims from a range of entities. The continued debate among School Board leadership, advocacy groups, and members of the public in the weeks before and after the October 9 board meeting further underscores the thorniness and obscurity of applying federal law to this dispute. Accordingly, the court finds the Board's response based on their understanding of the law was not "clearly unreasonable."

The School Board also promptly responded to the complaints and community backlash it received. Within about a week of its decision to reinstate the lunchtime event, the Board issued a Community Message recognizing "that these discussions have left many feeling angry, frustrated, or invalidated," and affirming that "[the Board's] policies require us to ensure students' constitutional rights to assemble and hear diverse perspectives, just as we expect respectful conduct and nondiscrimination in all schools." … [T]he School Board also consulted its legal counsel and laid out parameters for the event to ensure that it could proceed behind closed doors without disrupting the school or violating any laws….

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

Doe has the option of, you know, not attending the event.

[John F. Carr]

The school board may be caught in the middle. If only interpleader and an anti-SLAPP law were available. School deposits one event permit with the court and says "I don't care who wins." If the event organizer wins, it gets the permit and attorney's fees for illegal suppression of speech.

[tuphat]

Something off about a secondary school allowing/sanctioning political groups. College, sure, but high school?

[Michael P]

What kind of shithole country do you come from where teens are expected to be docile, apolitical sheep?

[Krayt]

In this country, Our Betters have scolded professors for opining on things outside their area of expertise, in a context of firing.

If you want to know which side does this, you're right.

[Krayt]

The irony is I support trans, but also not censorship by heckler's veto. (Heckled's veto?)

[Rossami]

First off, the Turning Point USA club is no more overtly political than the LGBTQ club. Sure, it's aligned with the political party that roughly shares its values - and that goes in both directions.

Second, even if it were an overtly political group (Young Democrats or Young Republicans), why would that be even slightly "off"? Both those groups exist and have chapters in many high schools.

[Sarcastr0]

There are gay Republicans.

There are no Turning Point Democrats.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the funny thing is, you actually believe that.

[Sarcastr0]

Just like I know what the word ration means.

Don’t be cryptic, what is your issue with my pretty normal observation?

[Brett Bellmore]

That it's absurd, and self-evidently unlikely in the extreme.

There are how many Democrats in this country?

There are about 45M people in the US who are actually registered as Democrats. There are something like 80 million who vote Democratic.

So, none of them are members of Turning Point? Zip, zero, nada?

Now, if you wanted to say that there are relatively few Turning Point Democrats, yeah, maybe you'd be right. Not zero, but relatively few.

[Rossami]

I won't even go with "relatively few". Polling of those who register D still include a surprisingly large number who prefer traditional social policies and family norms. They are as frustrated by their lack of voice within their own party as the gay and pro-abortion Rs (and pretty much all the independents).

[Brett Bellmore]

Unlike "none", "relatively few" is a judgement call.

[Sarcastr0]

TPUSA's activities are less pro-markets and Christian values and more anti-Democratic Party.

BLEXIT, for instance.

You're pretending a pluralism that MAGA affiliation does not allow.

There are Log Cabin Republicans. There is no similar organization within TPUSA.

This is a weird hill for you to die on.

[Rossami]

Your fantasies and illusions about a group that you're not part of are ... interesting. And not at all dispositive.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see how claiming that there are probably some Turning Point members in a population of 80 plus million is a hill I'd have to be concerned about dying on. You really should accept that people have more diverse motivations than the sterotypes that live in your head.

I’m a Democrat. My Turning Point USA chapter welcomed me with open arms.

"As a political science major, I had a strong desire to stay politically active on campus, but I wanted to study all sides of the spectrum. I made the choice to join both the College Democrats and Turning Point USA this past spring semester of 2025."

[tuphat]

From TPUSA high school page, sound pretty political to me:

JOIN THE LARGEST CONSERVATIVE STUDENT MOVEMENT IN THE NATION. With over 1000 high school clubs, and counting, Turning Point USA High School is the largest and most impactful youth movement for promoting freedom-loving, American values. Students champion these initiatives by organizing into student-led chapters and activism hubs. TPUSA High School employs 48 field representatives nationwide who exist to empower each high school chapter in becoming freedom-loving activists within their community by sharing their beliefs through grassroots activism, and organizing exciting events.

[Brett Bellmore]

He didn't say they weren't overtly political. He said, "no more overtly political than the LGBTQ club".

[bernard11]

As long as they are open to hearing political groups in general, it seems fine.

Surely they would allow, say, the Governor to speak. Yet some governors might well express views similar to those of TP.

(Incidentally, I , like others here, am assuming attendance was truly voluntary - not held in the cafeteria at noon, for example. I would definitely object if it was mandatory.)

[tuphat]

Victoria Cobb is president of The Family Foundation. From their website:
"We believe there is no square inch in all the universe over which God has not claimed “Mine,” and that includes the arenas of civil government and public policy where we spend much of our time. We advocate for policies based on Biblical principles that enable families to flourish at the state and local level."

[bacchys]

Plaintiff would have been better off seeking to schedule a drag queen and a trans athlete as speakers at another event...

[santamonica811]

I don't get it. What are you whining about here???

[Brett Bellmore]

That the appropriate response to speech you disagree with is speech that you agree with?

[ReaderY]

While the District Court only addressed the fourth Winter factor, it would appear that the court’s reasoning would apply equally to factors two and three. If the school failed to cancel the event because it reasonably believed it would be plausibly subjected to a viable First Amendment claim, that strikes me as equivalent to saying that the event was playsibly protected by the First Amendment. If the event was in fact protected by the First Amendment, then it would not constitute either harassment based on sex (eliminating factor 2) or a hostile environment (eliminating factor 3). Under the court’s approach, it seemed to me the court effectively determined that the event was in fact plausibly so protected. But such a determination would prevent the plaintiff from making a clear showing that factors 2 and 3 were established.

I recognized the court actually made a slightly different finding. It in fact only determined that the school REASONABLY BELIEVED the event was plausibly protected by the first amendment, without actually making any finding about the event’s actual first amendment protection status.

But I find myself at a complete loss to come with a hypothetical where a person reasonably believes that speech is plausibly protected by the First Amendment, yet the speech isn’t actually plausibly protection. And I flatter myself to think I’m pretty good at coming up with hypotheticals. But I’m stumped here. The reason I’m stumped is that it seems to me that if something is objectively plausible, then a subjective belief it is plausible must be (objectively) reasonable. And versa. I don’t think it’s possible for one to be the case but not the other. I think the two are equivalent.

So I think the logical inference from the Court’s treatment of factor 4 is that factors 2 and 3 weren’t met either. Yet the court wasn’t willing to say so. I find that curious.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A Title IX claim premised on sexual harassment, as here, requires the plaintiff to prove that: “(1) the educational institution receives federal funds; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to harassment based on her sex; (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile (or abusive) environment in an educational program or activity; and (4) there is a basis for imputing liability to the institution.”
...

"Under the fourth prong, liability may only be imputed to the institution in cases of deliberate indifference. Id. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that an institution may be liable for third-party harassment “only where [its] response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.”

So, what the court actually ruled is not that the school WAS clearly being reasonable, but instead, that the plaintiffs had not established that it was clear that the school was being NOT reasonable.

That is, simply, the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs, and they had not met it.

[ReaderY]

OK. Give me a hypothetical where (4) is not met because the school wasn’t being unreasonable in believing the alleged harassment is protected by the first amendment, yet (2) and (3) are met (to preliminary injunction standard of proof) because it’s nonetheless objectively clear that the alleged harassment isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

"because it’s nonetheless objectively clear that the alleged harassment isn’t protected by the First Amendment."

I'm not really interested in analyzing such a stupid counterfactual.

[ReaderY]

So you aren’t actually taking up a contrary position then?

Geez, good thing you’re not getting paid for this. Even Argument Clinic has standards!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm just trying to get you to grasp the difference between the court deciding that the plaintiffs have not proven their case, and the court deciding that the plaintiffs are wrong.

[ReaderY]

I know the difference very well. When did I talk about beng right or wrong? I just said if the plaintiffs have not proven (4), they also have not proven (2) or (3) either; that is, in this scenario, the same evidece that proves (4) also proves (2) and (3).

[Kleppe]

"While the court recognizes and sympathizes with Doe and their anxiety and distress surrounding the event, …"

I hate this kind of language from government sources. Tell them the fucking answer is no and move on.

[y81]

That kind of emotional pablum is characteristic of the age in which we live. (To their credit, the Conspirators are remarkably free of such nonsense, although that may be because they are all male.) It is notable, historically, how the Civil War purged American public discourse, and the First World War purged European discourse, of florid Victorian sentimentality. Possibly some future genuine suffering will purge us. In the meantime, let us count ourselves lucky to live in an age so privileged and safe that we can afford to indulge in such pointless and banal efforts at consolation.

[ReaderY]

I’d take the florid garden of Victorian sentimentality over the desert of post-WWI Communist, Nazi, etc. hate discourse any day. The writings of the Eugenics movement castigating florid Victorian sentimentality for holding back from letting the strong triumph over the weak come to mine. To me they are ugly eyesores to be avoided, not high points to be emulated. There is healthy masculinity, and there is toxic masculinity.

[ReaderY]

In general, I favor judges expressing sympathy for losing plaintiffs. Whether they have been legally wronged or not, they feel wronged, and their feelings matter.

Expressing a little sympathy costs society very little and helps keep the peace.

[ReaderY]

It also reflects the traditional role of judges as fair, neutral arbiters in social controversies rather than opinionated actors, arbiters whose highest aim is to help people resolve their differences and troubles peacefully and respectfully. Being fair and neutral requires being able to recognize the humanity of, and express sympathy for, people on both sides of a position.

[Rossami]

When you express sympathy for both sides, that comes off as fair. When you only express sympathy for one side, that comes off as unfair even if you decide for the other party on technical grounds. In this case, the judge would have been perceived as more fair by not expressing sympathy for either side and simply deciding the case.

[ReaderY]

One expresses sympathy for people who suffer a loss. The other side won.

[Rossami]

And you congratulate the winners. Referees and judges should do neither. It impunes their appearance of neutrality.

[Sarcastr0]

"This Whole Thing Smacks Of Gender," i holler as i overturn my uncle's barbeque grill and turn the 4th of July into the 4th of Shit

https://x.com/dril/status/213849618415484929?lang=en

[wvattorney13]

I don't know how prongs 2 and 3 are even remotely satisfied. I'm not sure how they could even be pled.

Stuff like this should be dismissed and sanctioned.

[santamonica811]

Here at the VC, we often get posts about cases where we wonder what the F was the school thinking?!? Not here. The school was put in an uncomfortable position, it quickly figured out, "Hey, we're probably gonna get sued, regardless of how we decide." So, the school then took a breath, it did some research, got input from all sides, and then made a decision. Sort of the EXACT OPPOSITE from "indifference," as the court noted.

So, we can all have opinions about the merits (or lack thereof) of the plaintiff's case. But we can congratulate the school for doing its best to do the right thing.

[y81]

[MollyGodiva]

The lawyer should be sanctioned for bringing such a frivolous motion. Prior restraint is a long established 1A violation.

[Rossami]

Plaintiff should have lost at point two (and been sanctioned for filing such a silly claim). Someone else running a meeting that you're not required to attend is not in any possible way "harassment" on the basis of sex or anything else.

[Rossami]

Okay on further reflection, maybe winning on point two would require a finding of fact that a jury would have to decide. Point four is a slam-dunk finding of law which closes off this silly claim without need to wait for a jury. If that's why the judge chose to decide this on point four and ducked deciding points two or three, I can see the reasoning. That assumption is somewhat contradicted by the gratuitous "the court ... sympathizes with Doe" comment but I'll give the judge the benefit of doubt for now.

[bloocow2]

It's the right call.

I do feel bad for the plaintiff, though, who I'm sure is not having the best of times in this frankly insane culture war over a mostly harmless and put-upon minority group. And I do wish that this person had not been invited to speak at the school. But I don't think it should be disallowed either.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't feel bad for the plaintiff. A free society requires that people be somewhat thick skinned, not deliberately make themselves into a mass of bare nerve endings.

Knowing that there are people who disagree with you, and they are free to speak publicly, may bother you, but the appropriate response to that being bothered is "Suck it up, Buttercup, it's a free country."

[bloocow2]

You are allowed to criticise them, though. Right? Because that's free speech too.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be clear, I *might* have been playing the world's smallest violin on the plaintiff's behalf if they hadn't brought the legal action. Bringing the legal action erased even that nominal quantum of sympathy; The world's smallest violin remains in storage.

They're the aggressor here. Turning Point just wanted to speak, THEY wanted to bring the power of the law down on a school that had the nerve to let TP speak.

But, yes, they're entitled to complain. Just not to seek a STFU order with force of law.

[Sarcastr0]

You have a right to petition as well.

Toughen up tends to come from fragile snowflakes.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have a legal right to petition. That doesn't mean I have to have any sympathy at all for somebody who exercises it by petitioning the government to have somebody ordered to STFU just because they disagree with them.

[Rossami]

That is an astonishingly stupid comment. "Toughen up" means 'learn to tolerate dissent', not 'roll over when someone threatens you'. The plaintiff brought the lawsuit. The plaintiff tried to use the coercive power of government to suppress speech he/she disagreed with.

[Sarcastr0]

Toughen up does not just mean 'learn to tolerate dissent.' Brett uss it to eschew sympathy entirely.
Seperately on this very thread for people saying expressions of sympathy just show how weak kids are these days.

Mostly it's grumpy hold-outs who front like that these days. And none are as toughened up as they insist others be.

[Rossami]

No, he (and others) said that the plaintiff used up their sympathy by unreasonably escalating the fight.

I can feel sympathy for Bobby when he gets teased on the playground. I no longer feel sympathy for Bobby when he pulls out a knife and starts making blood-spatter paintings with his former playmates.

[Nora_1989]

I do feel bad for the plaintiff, who is undoubtedly caught in the middle of an exhausting and unnecessary culture war over a mostly harmless and often misunderstood group. While I wish this person hadn’t been invited to speak at the school, I also don’t believe their voice should be outright disallowed. And just as clarity and fairness matter in discussions like these, having reliable help in everyday situations—such as a dependable sleutelservice woerden
when dealing with lock or key issues—can make stressful moments much easier to manage.

[Rossami]

spam account. please block

[tkamenick]

Missed teaching moment - "I understand this speech bothers you. You're welcome to sponsor a counterpoint. That's how we do things in this country. We're the government, and we're required to stay neutral. We neither endorse nor condone this."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I'm sympathetic to these plaintiffs who want to censor views which, not so long ago, were fairly uncontroversial but which we now know to be false and hurtful. The school did its due diligence in consulting legal counsel and trying to figure out some way to censor the speech in question. The school concluded that the First Amendment didn't allow them to censor this speech. Of course, hypothetically, there *might* be some legal angle by which they could have legitimately censored these hatemongers, but I won't go into that because the school's decision not to censor was made in good faith, and was not tainted by sympathy for the wrongthinkers. I regretfully must rule against these holy and righteous plaintiffs."

Imagine what will happen when the liberal free speech culture, which undergirds our modern robust First Amendment jurispdrudence, collapses. Judges like this one will more and more act in accordance with their censorship sympathies, as soon as they're given permission to do so.

[ReaderY]

Who are you quoting? Yourself? That language doesn’t appear anywhere in the opinion.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No shit, Sherlock.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satire

What tipped you off - the term "wrongthinkers"? The reference to "holy and righteous plaintiffs"?

[Rossami]

When people miss your attempts at sarcasm or satire, it's not usually the fault of the reader.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Depends on how many people make the mistake, how intelligent they are, and whether they actually read the satire.

Still, I'll make more frequent use of the /sarc tag in future.

[ReaderY]

I think both Congress and the courts should think carefully about situations where government can effectively be shaken down - no matter what it does, somebody is going to sue it. There should perhaps be special statutes addressing what happens when government is threatened with lawsuits on both sides of an issue. Perhaps its only obligation should be the equivalent of initiating an interpleader case and letting the two sides fight it out among themselves in a manner that doesn’t require the taxpayers to pay the winner’s legal fees or divert a lot of precious taxpayer money from educating children to legal defense.

[wvattorney13]

In my view, the solution is to come down hard on plaintiffs and attorneys who bring these kids of lawsuits. It cannot be actionable in a free country that you have to be three steps removed from speech you don't like.

As was said above, the plaintiffs here were not required to attend this presentation for class credit. Their complaint was that others would have the opportunity to attend a presentation that they would enjoy.

[ReaderY]

That would be true if the plaintiffs claims were clearly frivolous. The problem as I see it is that they aren’t.

The law here has managed to make such an ass of itself that neither side’s claims are clearly frivolous. The law has created unreasonable expectations on both sides. I see that as primarily the law’s problem, and not primarily the problem of one side or the other.

I suspect you are conflating your own strong opinions on which side is right with an objective view of the state of the law. I agree the plaintiffs here lose. But I don’t think their claims were frivolous.

The whole concept of harassment is judge-made law without statutory contours. And past harassment case opinions have certainly suggested a breadth of application that runs smack into the First Amendment and risks shutting down issues of public debate.

I honestly think schools teaching minors shouldn’t have to host every controversial club, topic, and speaker that runs their way, and shouldn’t have to be made crucibles of every social controversy. Nor should they be required to closely police every aspect of ther students’ private conduct.

I frankly beleve schools should get some relief from BOTH First Amendment and harassment law. Both have become far too intrusive and diverted schools too much from their missions. Both have sometimes done more to transfer wealth from taxpayers to lawyers than any contribution they have made to actual justice.

The fact that they seem to conflict is a sign that both have gone to far. Schools should not have to host every controversial speaker. Nor should they have to make every private breakdown in student-on-student relationships a federal case, or be required to protect students from things they don’t want to hear.

Educators could use some relief from both camps.

[Krayt]

the Board issued a Community Message recognizing "that these discussions have left many feeling angry, frustrated, or invalidated,"

The evolution of patter to include virtue signalling and a warm fuzzy you're a good person, ergo censorship ok, is disturbing but not unexpected.

[jay.tee]

How was this permitted to be filed pseudonymously?