Supreme Court Declines to Take Case Alleging Weaponization of DOJ Against Parents Who Spoke Out Against Schools

by Jaryn Crouson

 

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected to take on a case that accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of targeting parents who voiced concerns over school curricula, mask mandates and vaccine requirements.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021 after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a directive to investigate “threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” The case was petitioned to the Supreme Court in July with several parents alleging Garland’s investigation created a “chilling effect on their right to freedom of speech and reputational harm” after they were labeled threats for speaking out against school boards.

Saline Parents - Timeline of Controversial Events
Saline Parents – Timeline of Controversial Events / salineparents.org

DCNF-logoA 2022 whistleblower revealed that the FBI’s counterterrorism division created a “threat tag” to target concerned parents and allegedly opened “at least dozens of investigations” into parents over their criticisms of school boards and administration. One mom was labeled a threat for her membership in the “right wing mom’s group” Moms for Liberty and for being a “gun owner” after she reportedly said “we are coming for you,” in a warning to school officials that they could be replaced in an upcoming election. One father was said to “fit the profile of an insurrectionist,” despite the FBI having “no specific information or observations of … any specific crimes or threats.”

“The Attorney General has pejoratively designated these parents as ‘threats’ and ‘domestic terrorists,’ deeming them worthy of investigation and surveillance by the federal government,” Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi, lawyers for American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) who represent the case, wrote in the petition to the Court.

The case was shot down in 2022 by a Trump-appointed judge who claimed Garland’s directive did not impose “regulations, requirements or enforcement” and did not explicitly target parents, a decision which was affirmed in 2023 by a federal appeals court, according to The Hill.

– – –

Jaryn Crouson is a reporter at Daily Caller News Foundation.

 

 


Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Related posts

Comments