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….