The Supreme Court won’t revive a lawsuit from parents in Michigan and Virginia who sued Attorney General Merrick Garland after he directed federal authorities to address threats against school board members and educators at public schools nationwide.
The lawsuit, filed in October 2021 by the conservative American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of Loudoun County, Va., and Saline, Mich., parents, accused Garland of using federal law enforcement resources to “silence” parents who openly oppose “progressive” policies in public schools.
The parents asked the Supreme Court to determine whether they have standing to challenge Garland’s directive, which they said created a “chilling effect on their right to freedom of speech and reputational harm.” On Monday, the justices declined.
A memorandum Garland issued to the FBI and U.S. attorneys in early October 2021 spurred the parents’ lawsuit. In the memo, Garland noted a “disturbing” spike in threats to school administrators, board members, teachers and staff, and urged law enforcement to address the matter.
“While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views,” Garland wrote.
Though the memo does not mention “parents” or suggest they are at fault, the coalition of Virginia and Michigan parents said in court filings they were the “intended targets” of Garland’s directive.
“The Attorney General has pejoratively designated these parents as ‘threats’ and ‘domestic terrorists,’ deeming them worthy of investigation and surveillance by the federal government,” AFLC lawyers Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi wrote in the parents’ petition to the Supreme Court.
A Trump-appointed federal judge dismissed the lawsuit on standing in 2022, ruling that Garland’s request did not impose regulations, requirements or enforcement actions on anyone, “much less the plaintiffs.”
“Further, even if the alleged policy contained any kind of restriction, regulation, or proscription, it would not apply to the plaintiffs’ conduct,” U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote in his 10-page ruling. “The plaintiffs represent that their conduct includes verbal opposition and peaceful protests, akin to ‘private citizens petitioning their government officials for a redress of grievances,’ but never ‘threat[s] of criminal violence.'”
A federal appeals court affirmed the district court’s ruling last year.
