Book-burning neo-Nazi extremists file a lawsuit against Chatham schools

A neo-Nazi anti-government extremist organization has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a school district that allows employees to respect students’ privacy rights by withholding information from their parents.

Moms for Liberty, a far-right organization with a history of anti-LGBTQ activism, book-ban campaigns, and associations with extremists, has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn a Chatham school policy that allows educators in some circumstances to respect a transgender student’s privacy rather than automatically disclose the child’s gender identity to parents.

The lawsuit, filed by the conservative Thomas More Society in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, challenges the School District of the Chathams’ Policy 5145.7, which is intended to provide transgender and gender-nonconforming students with a “safe, supportive, and inclusive environment.” The policy was adopted in January 2024 and cites New Jersey law and state guidance concerning the rights of transgender students.

Moms for Liberty portrays the policy in dramatically different terms, repeatedly describing transgender identity as an “ideology” and accusing educators of facilitating secret gender transitions.

The complaint argues that the district violates parents’ constitutional rights by permitting school employees to withhold information about a student’s gender identity, use a student’s requested name or pronouns, and refer students to LGBTQ support organizations without parental approval.

The lawsuit also seeks to protect students who refuse to use transgender classmates’ requested names and pronouns. It argues that district anti-bullying and disciplinary policies could subject those students to punishment ranging from detention to suspension or expulsion.

“For an organization whose members once placed Hitler’s words about controlling youth across the front of a newsletter, the irony of demanding government power over what schools may permit young people to say about themselves is difficult to overlook,” said progressive New Jersey Democrat Lisa McCormick. “The Chatham complaint does not merely challenge the district’s ability to respect a student’s confidence and privacy by keeping ‘gender identity’ from parents. It asks the federal court to impose several additional requirements affecting students, parents and school employees.”

Moms for Liberty asks the federal court to prohibit the district from using a transgender student’s requested name or pronouns without parental consent, require parental notice before certain accommodations, prevent referrals to LGBTQ or transgender support organizations without written parental permission, and bar punishment of students who refuse to recognize another student’s asserted gender identity.

The litigation places New Jersey at the center of a national struggle over two potentially conflicting interests: parents’ authority over the upbringing of their children and the privacy, safety, and civil rights of young people who may not be ready — or may not feel safe — disclosing their sexual orientation or gender identity at home.

It also raises a more fundamental question largely missing from Moms for Liberty’s rhetoric: How can an organization claiming that schools must immediately tell parents about a child’s private conversations account for families in which disclosure could expose a young person to rejection, punishment or abuse?

Extremist designation follows years of controversy

Moms for Liberty describes itself as a “parental rights” organization. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes it very differently.

The civil rights organization classifies Moms for Liberty as an anti-government extremist organization and calls it a “far-right organization that engages in anti-student inclusion activities.”

The SPLC says the group grew out of opposition to COVID-19 public health measures before expanding into campaigns against LGBTQ inclusion, racially inclusive curricula and books it considers objectionable.

That designation is the SPLC’s characterization, not a government finding, and Moms for Liberty has strongly rejected the label.

But the organization’s record has repeatedly generated controversy well beyond ordinary disagreements over education policy.

In June 2023, the Hamilton County, Indiana, chapter placed a quotation attributed to Adolf Hitler prominently on the front page of its inaugural newsletter: “He alone, who OWNS the youth, GAINS the future.”

The quotation was associated with a 1935 Nazi rally promoting the Hitler Youth movement. After widespread condemnation, chapter Chair Paige Miller apologized and the quotation was removed.

Days later, national co-founder Tiffany Justice defended the chapter member responsible during a Moms for Liberty gathering, saying, “I stand with that mom,” a remark that drew cheers from the audience.

The episode does not establish that Moms for Liberty is a neo-Nazi organization, and the group said it condemned Hitler. But the decision to feature Hitler’s words — combined with subsequent extremist associations involving some of its leaders — has become an enduring part of the organization’s public record.

In November 2023, Moms for Liberty removed two Kentucky chapter leaders after they were photographed with members of the Proud Boys, including one posing with a Proud Boys flag. The national organization said their actions demonstrated “a lack of judgment and misalignment with our core values” and denied any affiliation with the far-right group.

The controversies did not prevent Moms for Liberty from acquiring substantial political influence. The group became closely aligned with Republican politicians and, during President Donald Trump’s second administration, gained significantly greater access to federal policymakers. The Associated Press reported this year that co-founder Tina Descovich had participated in White House events and discussions involving transgender athletes, diversity initiatives and efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.

Lawsuit invokes Supreme Court’s rightward turn

Moms for Liberty’s lawsuit relies heavily on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Mahmoud v. Taylor and Mirabelli v. Bonta, handed down by a court with a 6-3 conservative majority.

In Mahmoud, the court ruled 6-3 in June 2025 that a Maryland school district violated the free-exercise rights of religious parents by refusing to allow their children to opt out of instruction involving LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six Republican-appointed justices; Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The Thomas More Society’s description of Mirabelli, however, overstates what the Supreme Court actually decided.

Its news release says the court “held” that policies permitting undisclosed gender transitions substantially interfere with parents’ constitutional rights. The March 2 decision was more limited: The Supreme Court was considering an application to vacate an interlocutory stay, not issuing a final ruling resolving the underlying litigation. The majority concluded that religiously objecting parents were likely to succeed on their First Amendment free-exercise claim and that parents challenging California’s policies on due-process grounds were also likely to succeed.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that distinction in a concurrence, writing that the court’s assessment was preliminary and that “likely” was important because the merits had not been conclusively resolved. The parents still had to continue litigating the case.

That distinction could become significant in New Jersey, where state law independently prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

The Chathams district’s equal educational opportunity policy says students must receive equal and bias-free access to school facilities, programs, activities and services regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and other protected characteristics.

Chatham’s board disputes extremists’ reading of the law

The dispute escalated after Thomas More Society lawyers demanded in May that the district rescind Policy 5145.7 or suspend it.

According to the complaint, Board of Education President Ann Ciccarelli responded at a June 15 meeting by saying the Mirabelli decision was “not binding on public school districts in New Jersey.”

“What is binding on the School District of the Chathams is the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination,” Ciccarelli said, according to the lawsuit. She also cited state education regulations and Department of Education guidance.

Moms for Liberty calls that position legally false, but the group faces widespread criticism and watchdog designations for spreading inflammatory claims and misinformation regarding public school curricula.

“When Thomas More Society prevailed at the Supreme Court, we made a promise: any school board or district that kept hiding a child’s so-called ‘gender transition’ from parents, or that punished kids for refusing to bow down to an ideology they don’t believe, would be held accountable,” Christopher Ferrara, senior counsel for the Thomas More Society, said in announcing the lawsuit.

Moms for Liberty CEO and co-founder Tina Descovich accused the Chathams board of an “assault on the constitutional rights of every family in that district” and said the organization would not tolerate schools hiding what she characterized as life-altering decisions from parents.

Those accusations remain allegations. Filing a complaint does not establish that the district violated the Constitution, and the Chathams defendants will have an opportunity to answer the lawsuit.

Whose parental rights?

The organization’s sweeping invocation of “parental rights” also presents an obvious contradiction: Parents do not all share Moms for Liberty’s religious or political beliefs.

Parents who support transgender children may want schools to recognize those children’s identities. Other families may believe that a teenager should have some measure of privacy when discussing sexuality or gender with a teacher or counselor. Still others may regard a policy requiring disclosure against a child’s wishes as government intrusion into their own family relationships.

Moms for Liberty’s requested injunction would nevertheless impose restrictions districtwide.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a rule preventing educators from using a transgender student’s new name or pronouns without prior parental notice and consent and prohibiting referrals to LGBTQ or transgender support groups without written parental permission.

The lawsuit also portrays transgender participation in sports and use of facilities in starkly ideological terms, alleging that allowing transgender girls to participate with other girls can constitute “sexual harassment and child abuse” from the perspective of the plaintiffs. Those are the plaintiffs’ allegations and religious beliefs, not established findings of fact.

That distinction matters in a case in which the plaintiffs accuse public educators of ideological indoctrination while simultaneously asking a federal court to require school policy to accommodate their own religious understanding of sex and gender.

From school-board insurgency to federal litigation

Moms for Liberty emerged in Florida in 2021 during protests against pandemic restrictions and rapidly transformed itself into a national political organization focused on school boards, curricula, LGBTQ issues and books. The SPLC says the group developed relationships with anti-government activists and other far-right organizations as it expanded.

Its campaigns have not always translated into electoral success.

After highly contentious 2023 school board campaigns, liberal and moderate candidates prevailed in numerous closely watched contests. The American Federation of Teachers estimated that candidates backed by Moms for Liberty and similar conservative organizations lost roughly 70% of their races, although the groups disputed the union’s tally.

The Chathams lawsuit shows that losing elections does not necessarily end the battle. Organizations unable to persuade voters or school boards to adopt their agenda can turn to federal courts — particularly a judiciary reshaped by years of Republican appointments — to seek constitutional mandates that apply regardless of local political preferences.

For transgender students in Chatham, what is presented nationally as an abstract battle over “parental rights” could have intensely personal consequences.

The case asks federal judges to determine not merely what parents are entitled to know, but whether the government can require educators to disclose deeply personal information about a child, whether schools may protect a student’s confidence in some circumstances, and whose rights prevail when the beliefs of parents, students and public employees collide.