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?

[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???

[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.

[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.

[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.