Judge Dismisses Saline Parents' Lawsuit Against AG Merrick Garland

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by an association of Saline parents against Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The lawsuit was filed Oct. 19 by Saline Parents, an "unincorporated association of parents," and six parents who live in Saline, Mich., or in Loudoun County, Virginia, according to court documents, after Garland announced measures to address the "rise in criminal conduct" directed toward school personnel and after he directed the FBI to meet with police to discuss dealing with threats against school board members, teachers, administrators and staff.

Garland's directives left many conservatives complaining that the AG's office was criminalizing dissent and comparing concerned parents with terrorists.

Garland's attorney's motioned to have the case dismissed.

US District Judge Dabney Friedrich sided with Garland, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue because Garland's directives did not satisfy the "injury-in-fact" requirement.

Judge Friedrich wrote that the Garland directives were not "regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory in nature" because they did not impose "regulations, requirements or enforcement actions" on individuals. 

"None of the documents that the plaintiffs allege establish the policy create an imminent threat of future legal actions against anyone, much less the plaintiffs," Friedrich wrote.

Juddge Friedrich wrote that even if the Garland policy contained any restrictions or regulations, it would not apply to the plaintiffs' peaceful protests or verbal opposition at school board meetings.

"The Attorney General’s memorandum explicitly states that it does not target what 'is protected under our Constitution,' which includes 'spirited debate about policy
matters,'" Freidrich wrote. "It only covers 'criminal conduct' that is not constitutionally protected, such as 'threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.'"

Judge Friedrich also dismissed the notion that the plaintiffs suffered reputation injury as "threats" or "domestic terrorists."

"The only concrete evidence that the plaintiffs provide of reputational injury is the National School Board Association’s use of the words 'domestic terrorism' in a September 29, 2021 letter to the White House.  This letter raised concerns about 'acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials' and charactered these 'heinous actions' as 'equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism,'" Friedrich wrote.

Friedrich noted that the NSBA letter cannot be considered the basis for Garland's directives because the NSBA is unaffiliated with the AG and Garland's Oct. 4 memorandum does not mention the letter.

I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive

Replies

I'd like to the Group of Parents that attempted to STAND UP FOR STUDENTS RIGHTS.....liberal Judeges and Liberal School Board memembers are damanging our children.  Sontag, Ruhumohr, and Austin  for Schoold Board, time to "sweep " the liberals out no more  destroying our CHILDREN .

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive