Parents in Virginia and Michigan claimed the Justice Department targeted them for protesting school policies based on their First Amendment rights. Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger said a lower court dismissed the case because the parents could not be prosecuted for peaceful protest.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case brought by parents in Virginia and Michigan who claimed the Justice Department targeted them for protesting at school board meetings.
At the center of the controversy was Attorney General Merrick Garland’s 2021 memo aimed at combating “an alarming spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, trustees, teachers, and staff.” It was. The memo, which set up meetings with state and local law enforcement agencies, aimed to “stop these threats, identify them as they occur, and prosecute when appropriate.”
Some parents in Loudoun County, Virginia, and Saline, Michigan are challenging the policy in federal court, saying it targets them for protesting the school policy based on their First Amendment rights. chanted. But district and circuit court judges rejected their claims.
The Supreme Court has now declined to hear the case.
The standoff over the school board meeting comes after several high-profile standoffs over COVID-19 policies around mask-wearing and vaccinations. Garland’s memo comes after the National Association of School Boards wrote a letter to the White House calling school protesters “domestic terrorists,” conservative newspapers reported. It is said that “The group later apologized.
Garland’s memo became a lightning rod for conservative lawmakers, who held hearings questioning whether prosecutors and the FBI were targeting parents who raised concerns. Lawmakers noted that the FBI created “threat tags” to track investigations authorized by the directive.
“Unjust policies aimed at intimidating parent protesters”
Parents who claimed they were at the epicenter of peaceful protests said amid legal challenges that their free speech was chilled by the threat of prosecution and that they were harmed by being labeled domestic terrorists. He claimed to have received it.
“Taken together, the alleged facts present a ‘plausible’ story of an unjust policy designed to intimidate and silence parent protesters at school board meetings.” said attorneys Robert Muse and David Elsalmi.
But Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress that they target violence and threats of violence, not just statements made at school board meetings. Garland said that through March 2023, federal authorities had received 22 reports and forwarded six cases to state and local governments for investigation.
Is vigorous debate about policy protected by the Constitution?
Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger said in the lawsuit that the lower court dismissed the case because the parents were not prosecuted for their peaceful protests and the policy did not label them as domestic terrorists.
“Additionally, the memorandum clarifies that “lively discussion of policy issues is protected under the Constitution,” and that the memo only refers to “an increase in criminal activity against school personnel.” , Preloger wrote.