WASHINGTON – On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear a case put forth by parents in Virginia and Michigan who contended that the Justice Department was targeting them for their protests at school board meetings.

The issue revolved around a 2021 memorandum from Attorney General Merrick Garland, which was intended to address “a concerning surge in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” The memo aimed to coordinate with state and local law enforcement to “deter these threats, recognize them when they occur, and prosecute them appropriately.”

Parents from Loudoun County, Virginia, and Saline, Michigan challenged the policy in federal court, asserting it violated their First Amendment rights to protest school policies. However, both the District and Circuit Courts dismissed their claims.

Now, the Supreme Court has chosen not to take up the matter.

The contention regarding school board meetings arose from various highly publicized disputes over COVID-19 regulations concerning mask-wearing and vaccinations. Conservative media reported that Garland’s memo was prompted by a letter from the National School Boards Association to the White House labeling protesting parents as “domestic terrorists.” The association later retracted this statement.

Garland’s memo sparked intense debate among conservative lawmakers, who held hearings questioning whether the DOJ and the FBI were unfairly targeting parents for expressing their opinions. These lawmakers pointed out that the FBI had developed “threat tags” to monitor investigations initiated by this directive.

Is vigorous policy debate within constitutional bounds?

In their legal actions, the parents at the center of these peaceful protests claimed that the threat of prosecution chilled their freedom of speech and that the label of domestic terrorists harmed their reputations.

“The facts presented combine to create a ‘plausible’ narrative of a rogue policy meant to intimidate and silence parents voicing opposition at school board meetings,” argued the attorneys for the parents, Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi.

However, Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to Congress that their focus was on violence or the possibility of violence, not mere expression at school board gatherings. By March 2023, Garland noted that federal authorities had received 22 reports of such incidents and referred six of these cases to local and state authorities for further investigation.

Was the spirited debate about policies protected under the Constitution?

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stated in a legal brief that the lower courts dismissed the lawsuit since parents were not prosecuted for their peaceful protests and the policy did not label them as domestic terrorists.

“Additionally, the memorandum clearly indicates that ‘spirited debate about policy matters is safeguarded by our Constitution,’ and that it was directed solely towards addressing the increase in criminal activities aimed at school personnel,” Prelogar explained.