Virginia drops charge against Loudoun superintendent at center of trans bathroom controversy

Prosecutors will not pursue the remaining criminal charge against Scott Ziegler, the former Loudoun County Public Schools superintendent who faced several indictments after the district was scrutinized for lying to parents about a sexual assault as it sought to enact a trans bathroom policy. 

Prosecutors working for Attorney General Jason Miyares filed a "motion for nolle prosequi" Wednesday, a legal notice to abandon prosecution before trial, The Daily Wire reported. The former superintendent still faced a third misdemeanor charge.  

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares announced in December 2022 that a Loudoun County judge ordered the unsealing of four indictments issued by a special grand jury against Ziegler. The jury also indicted the school system's public information officer Wayde Byard. 

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

Subscribe

Ziegler faced "one count of misdemeanor false publication," "one count of misdemeanor prohibited conduct," and "one count of misdemeanor penalizing an employee for a court appearance." Before the announcement of the indictments, the Loudoun County school board voted to fire Ziegler following the grand jury report.

"The Commonwealth submits that the orderly administration of justice, judicial economy, and the ends of justice mitigate against expending the significant additional resources that would be required to try the Defendant by jury on the instant Class 3 misdemeanor indictment," the motion stated.

Ziegler faces a $2,500 fine, 12 months in jail and other collateral consequences for a case unrelated to the controversy surrounding the proposed trans bathroom policy.

In September, a jury found Ziegler guilty of retaliating against a former special education teacher who complained about the district's response to her complaints about a student groping her in the classroom. The jury did not find Ziegler guilty of retaliating against the employee for testifying in April 2022. 

As prosecutors noted in their Wednesday motion, Ziegler was also charged for lying during a June 2021 school board meeting. In response to parents concerned about a proposed trans bathroom policy, the superintendent said that the district had no record of any sexual assaults taking place in bathrooms.

A male student wearing a skirt sexually assaulted a female student inside the girls' bathroom on May 28, 2021, at Stone Bridge High School. The same male student sexually assaulted another girl a few months later after he was transferred to Broad Run High School.

The special grand jury report, which investigated the district's response to the assaults, called Ziegler's assertion during the meeting a "bald-faced lie." In a Nov. 10 letter to Ziegler, Loudoun County Sheriff Michael Chapman also contradicted the claims made by the former superintendent during the June 2021 school board meeting. 

"[D]espite a public statement at a School Board meeting on June 22, 2021, denying any knowledge of sexual assaults in any LCPS bathrooms, you sent an email on May 28, 2021, to members of the School Board advising them of the incident — thus invalidating your public statement," Chapman wrote.

The grand jury report also condemned the district's "lack of cooperation" during its investigation, accusing the LCSB of putting up "roadblocks" from the very beginning. At one point, a lawyer for the board chairman and superintendent submitted a motion to quash the grand jury's subpoenas, but the motion was rejected. 

"LCSB's counsel consistently and repeatedly interrupted answers of his own witnesses when he felt certain information was about to be revealed," the report stated. 

"LCSB's counsel consistently and repeatedly objected to questions that would elicit information about a meeting or conversation that occurred when LCSB division counsel was present — regardless of whether that meeting or conversation had anything to do with soliciting legal advice, or if division counsel was even a party to the meeting or conversation. Division counsel's mere silent presence in a crowded room was enough for LCSB's lawyer to claim the attorney-client privilege and instruct the witnesses not to answer the question."