Local school districts can’t arbitrarily weaken state policies designed to protect gay students.
That was the bottom line of two rulings this week by the state Appellate Division.
Both cases stemmed from incidents in 2023 that catapulted the “culture wars” over public education in New Jersey into the headlines.
Three school districts in Monmouth County – Middletown, Marlboro and Manalapan-Englishtown – rescinded a state policy meant to protect transgender students. The key part of that policy said:
“The school district shall accept a student’s asserted gender identity; parental consent is not required. . . . There is no affirmative duty for any school district staff member to notify a student’s parent of the student’s gender identity or expression.”
Around the same time, the school board in Hanover Township, Morris County, initially went a bit further.
It said school personnel must notify parents about harmful student activities, including “sexual orientation.”
Critics said that suggested parents would be notified if school staff suspected a student was gay.
The state Attorney General’s Office challenged both actions in court. Judges in two jurisdictions put the boards’ actions on hold, pending examination by the state Division of Civil Rights.
The school districts appealed and a ruling by a three-judge panel that considered both the cases in Monmouth County and Hanover was issued this week,
The rulings made two basic points:
They affirmed the lower court rulings putting the boards’ attempt to weaken the transgender policy on hold.
However, it also said that the boards can consider alternative policies if the Civil Rights Division fails to make a decision on the matter.
Clearly, a problem here is the Civil Rights’ Division’s failure to act. The case has been before it for about 18 months or so.
Leaving that aside for a minute, the political chatter about these cases – and similar ones – revolves around “parents’ rights.”
However, the court’s opinion in the Monmouth case dismissed that concern, saying at one point that there are no statutes that:
“Impose affirmative requirements of parental notification concerning a student’s gender identity or expression.”
And in the Hanover case, the court said case law “has not extended this right to require schools to affirmatively provide parents with information.”
So, the status quo continues – the state’s transgender-related policies remain.
Now, the boards – in line with the opinion – can consider alternative policies, but there isn’t much wiggle room here. Any revised policy would still have to comply with New Jersey’s civil rights law.
In the wake of the ruling, the president of the Middletown school board, told NJ.Com that this was a victory for students. He said it shows that the AG overstepped its bounds.
That seems like a rather odd interpretation.
The ruling said that the boards’ actions rescinding the transgender policy remain on hold.
That prompted Michael Gottesman of the New Jersey Public Education Coalition, a progressive group, to observe:
“So do not be fooled by the disinformation campaign being pushed by the opposition. This is no victory for them.”
(Visited 53 times, 53 visits today)
The State Appellate Division recently issued a ruling in the case of Insider NJ, a prominent news outlet in the state. The ruling has sparked a debate among legal experts and media professionals about the implications for freedom of the press and the balance between protecting sources and ensuring transparency in government.
The case centered around a subpoena issued by the state Attorney General’s office to Insider NJ, seeking information about the sources of certain articles published by the outlet. Insider NJ refused to comply with the subpoena, citing New Jersey’s shield law, which protects journalists from being forced to disclose their sources.
The State Appellate Division ultimately sided with Insider NJ, ruling that the shield law applied in this case and that the outlet did not have to reveal its sources. The court emphasized the importance of protecting journalists’ ability to gather and report news without fear of government interference.
Legal experts have praised the ruling as a victory for press freedom, noting that it upholds the principles of the First Amendment and recognizes the crucial role that journalists play in holding government accountable. They argue that forcing journalists to reveal their sources could have a chilling effect on investigative reporting and undermine the public’s right to know.
However, some critics have raised concerns about the potential for abuse of the shield law, arguing that it could be used by journalists to shield sources who have provided false or misleading information. They also point out that there are exceptions to the shield law in cases where disclosure is necessary to prevent harm or protect national security.
Overall, the State Appellate Division’s ruling in the Insider NJ case has sparked an important conversation about the balance between press freedom and government oversight. It serves as a reminder of the vital role that journalists play in our democracy and the need to protect their ability to report the news without fear of reprisal.