New York Attorney General Letitia James is facing a new federal lawsuit accusing her office of violating the First Amendment by threatening to remove elected school board members who permit public discussion about transgender students in girls’ locker rooms and sports.

The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of school officials and parents represented by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, centers on a guidance letter James’ office sent to districts earlier this year. The letter warned that any board member who “demeans or stigmatizes” LGBTQ+ students—or allows similar comments during meetings—could face removal from office under the state’s Dignity for All Students Act (DASA).

The letter specifically cited complaints about comments opposing “transgender and gender-expansive students’ rights to use facilities, including restrooms and locker rooms, or participate on school athletic teams consistent with their gender identity.”

In one of the most controversial passages, James’ office stated that school boards are “limited public fora” under the First Amendment and therefore “may make reasonable, viewpoint-neutral rules governing the content of speech,” including banning public comment that might have “discriminatory, harassing, or bullying effects.”

But plaintiffs in the case argue the policy was not viewpoint-neutral and effectively silenced parents, students, and elected board members who disagreed with transgender inclusion policies in girls’ spaces.

Massapequa Union Free School District Board Chair Kerry Wachter, one of the lead plaintiffs, told Fox News Digital that she was personally informed by James’ office that she must cut off speakers at board meetings who voiced opposition to transgender students sharing facilities with girls.

“They’re saying if we allow this discussion in our board meetings, she can come in and remove us from the board,” Wachter said. “They want me to stop public comment and stop them from speaking.”

Wachter noted that no students were ever named in the discussions. “These are girls talking about their own experiences, their own discomfort. We’re not targeting anyone — we’re just listening to them,” she said.

The lawsuit contends that the attorney general’s directive chills constitutionally protected speech by threatening punitive action against elected officials who merely allow dissenting views to be expressed.

Attorney Kim Hermann of the Southeastern Legal Foundation said the state’s guidance was applied selectively. “They’re not saying you can’t talk about this topic,” Hermann said. “They’re saying that nobody can speak in favor of biological sex. If a transgender activist says, ‘Boys belong in girls’ sports,’ they can say whatever they want. But if someone disagrees, they’re silenced.”

The controversy follows months of escalating tensions in New York’s suburban school districts, particularly after the Massapequa school board adopted a policy in September requiring students to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their biological sex. The New York Civil Liberties Union sued the district soon after, arguing that the policy violated state anti-discrimination laws.

Parents and female students across the state — including in Rockville Centre and Rotterdam-Mohonasen — have described feeling uncomfortable sharing intimate spaces with biological males. Testimonies from those students have gone viral online, fueling national debate over whether states can restrict speech critical of transgender policies.

Wachter said the board’s public comment sessions have become flashpoints. “Girls are scared to talk,” she said. “Now even as adults, we’re being told we can’t let them speak.”

The plaintiffs allege James’ guidance letter amounts to unconstitutional censorship, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent by weaponizing state law to control speech at local government meetings. “When they’re threatening the removal of duly elected school board members for simply allowing public debate, that’s a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” Hermann said.

The lawsuit also highlights the chilling effect of James’ warning that even an unsuccessful removal proceeding could burden districts financially and distract from “important work.” Plaintiffs argue that language was a clear attempt to intimidate school boards into compliance.

James’ office has not publicly responded to the lawsuit.

The case marks a rare challenge to a state attorney general’s authority to interpret anti-bullying and civil rights statutes in the education system — and sets up a constitutional test over whether New York’s enforcement of LGBTQ+ policies can supersede free speech rights in public schools.