A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought in part by two Rockville Centre parents challenging a state guidance letter addressing harassment and bullying at school board meetings, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the case.
In a June 8 decision, U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci of the Northern District of New York granted a motion by state officials to dismiss the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction as moot.
The lawsuit, filed in December 2025, was brought by Massapequa Board of Education President Kerry Wachter, Rotterdam-Mohonasen school board member Danielle Ciampino, and Rockville Centre parents Sarah Rouse and Issac Kuo, who reside within the Rockville Centre Union Free School District and have children attending district schools.
The plaintiffs named New York Attorney General Letitia James, State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa and members of the state Board of Regents as defendants.
The suit challenged a May 8, 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter issued jointly by James and Rosa, which provided guidance to school districts on addressing harassment and bullying during public school board meetings, particularly comments directed at LGBTQ+ students.
According to the ruling, the letter noted that some school board members had made or encouraged comments that “demean and stigmatize LGBTQ+ students” and referenced state laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and expression.
Rouse and Kuo argued the guidance had a chilling effect on speech and said they feared potential repercussions for expressing views during public comment periods at Rockville Centre school board meetings. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the guidance, alleging it violated First Amendment free speech protections.
However, Nardacci concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish the concrete injury required for Article III standing.
“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Guidance Letter,” Nardacci wrote. “Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
The court found that the guidance letter did not impose penalties or create binding rules and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a credible threat of enforcement. The decision also stated there was no sufficient causal connection between the guidance and any alleged injury.
Because the court determined it lacked jurisdiction, it did not address the merits of the constitutional claims and denied the request for a preliminary injunction.
Nardacci ordered the complaint dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the plaintiffs could refile if they are able to establish standing in the future.
When reached by the Herald on Monday, Kuo referred questions to his legal team. In a statement provided by Chipper Beal, who handles communications for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the organization said it was reviewing the court’s decision but remained committed to the case’s underlying issues.
“We are currently reviewing the court’s decision, but we stand by our clients and will continue to fight for the rights of parents and school board members to speak their minds without fear of removal from office,” the statement said.
Rouse did not return a call from the Herald seeking comment.
