"Jewish, Zionist" Teachers' and Parents' Lawsuit Over Allegedly Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Zionist School Curriculum Can Be Refiled, Ninth Circuit Rules

The plaintiffs, Jewish parents and teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District, alleged that an ethnic studies model curriculum promoted anti-Zionist and antisemitic ideals and caused them harm. They claimed that at least two teachers were informally using the curriculum, but they did not allege that their own children or themselves were directly exposed to it. The district court concluded that the mere knowledge that the curriculum was taught in two classrooms among over 100,000 students was too remote to constitute an injury-in-fact. Consequently, the court dismissed the case with prejudice for insufficiency of the pleadings.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the standing defect, noting that the complaint did not show personal injury attributable to the curriculum’s spread. However, the court observed that the plaintiffs had proposed specific amendments that could potentially cure the standing deficiency, such as showing that the curriculum had proliferated over the two-plus years since the suit was filed or that their children had suffered antisemitic acts like bullying linked to the curriculum. By allowing leave to amend, the Ninth Circuit gave the plaintiffs a chance to allege concrete harm that would satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. The court emphasized that it was not ruling on the merits of the underlying claims.

Regarding the anti-SLAPP motion, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should not have awarded attorney fees to the defendants under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The court explained that a defendant may only prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion when it is clear the complaint cannot be saved by amendment. Because the plaintiffs’ complaint could potentially be cured by amendment, the fee award was improper.

The decision clarifies the standing threshold for claims based on alleged influence of a school curriculum, requiring plaintiffs to allege personal harm rather than merely speculative knowledge of its use. It also signals that federal courts will scrutinize anti-SLAPP fee awards more closely when a complaint remains amenable to amendment. For similar future lawsuits, plaintiffs will need to plead specific, concrete injuries tied to the curriculum’s implementation in their own schools or to their children. Overall, the ruling reshapes how standing and anti-SLAPP considerations interact in challenges to educational content.