{"id":13433,"date":"2021-10-20T11:28:22","date_gmt":"2021-10-20T16:28:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=13433"},"modified":"2021-10-20T11:28:24","modified_gmt":"2021-10-20T16:28:24","slug":"does-the-department-of-justice-have-jurisdiction-over-local-school-board-meetings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2021\/10\/20\/does-the-department-of-justice-have-jurisdiction-over-local-school-board-meetings\/","title":{"rendered":"Does the Department of Justice have Jurisdiction over Local School Board Meetings?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Joshua Larkin, Staff Writer<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Photo courtesy of unsplash.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Attorney General Merrick Garland came under fire for a recent memorandum he sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. attorney\u2019s offices on October 4, 2021.[1]<\/sup><\/a> In his memo, the Attorney General ordered federal law enforcement authorities to meet with \u201cfederal, state, local, tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district\u201d within thirty days of the memorandum\u2019s issuance, to discuss the \u201cstrategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.\u201d [2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This move has sparked a strong political reaction in a system already deeply divided. Conservative voices, such as talk-show host Mark Levin and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, have spoken out against the memorandum.[3]<\/sup><\/a>Levin called the move by Garland \u201can attempt by the Biden administration to bully parents from exercising their First Amendment rights.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a> Congressman McCarthy also stated that instruction from the Attorney General \u201cis not the role of the Department of Justice.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a> While this is an important topic for the education of our nation\u2019s youth and the rights of parents, it begs the question, does the Department of Justice have jurisdiction over local school board meetings?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Former federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, claims the Department of Justice has no jurisdiction over the issue.[6]<\/sup><\/a> In the National Review, McCarthy stated that the First Amendment protects speech \u201cunless it unambiguously calls for the use of force that the speaker clearly intends, under circumstances in which the likelihood of violence is real and imminent.\u201d[7]<\/sup><\/a> McCarthy claimed that this was an issue that \u201cGarland well knows, as he and Clinton officials stressed to me nearly 30 years ago.\u201d[8]<\/sup><\/a> McCarthy continued by adding, \u201c[a]s long as such speech does not constitute a clear and imminent threat to do violence \u2026 there is no incitement, and hence no [federal] law-enforcement interest to vindicate.\u201d [9]<\/sup><\/a> McCarthy cites 18 U.S. Code \u00a7 373 to support his claim, and writes that under \u00a7 373, \u201ceven an actual threat of violence is not actionable unless the speaker has called for \u2018physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The focus for McCarthy\u2019s claim is the fact that \u00a7 373 relies upon illegal action against another \u201cin violation of the laws of the United States.\u201d McCarthy states that lack of federal interest over school board meetings, along with no U.S. laws being violated, means the federal government cannot interfere.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Accordingly, McCarthy states that the federal government\u2019s lack of police power prohibits it from carrying out the Attorney General\u2019s instruction. [12]<\/sup><\/a> McCarthy reinforces his claim by comparing the role of federal and state jurisdictions in a situation where violence did occur against a school board member. McCarthy wrote, \u201cIf I threaten to punch my local school-board president in the nose there is a possibility \u2026 that I have violated state law, but there is no possibility whatsoever that the matter is a concern for the Justice Department.\u201d[13]<\/sup><\/a> McCarthy notes that Garland\u2019s specific instruction for federal authorities to work with state and local officials shows that the \u201cDOJ has no jurisdiction here.\u201d[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supporting McCarthy\u2019s position is a conservative legal group created by former Senior Advisor to President Trump, Stephen Miller, who requested the Department of Justice\u2019s Office of the Inspector General \u201cinvestigate the circumstances surrounding Attorney General Merrick Garland\u2019s memo.\u201d[15]<\/sup><\/a> Miller claimed that this investigation by the Inspector General is necessary because it can \u201cengage in the kinds of investigations that can lead to an internal disciplinary action.\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Joining in opposition to the Attorney General\u2019s instruction are Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.[17]<\/sup><\/a> The lawmakers have requested that the Attorney General explain \u201chow any of this rises to the definition of criminal harassment\u201d and \u201cto make very clear to the American public that the Department of Justice will not interfere with the rights of parents to come before school boards and speak with educators about their concerns.\u201d[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While this is a new issue regarding the role of the federal government, it appears that it may be an issue of intense debate in the coming weeks as the rights of our nation\u2019s youth and parents are further discussed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/ag\/page\/file\/1438986\/download<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/media\/mark-levin-garland-school-board-memo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/wchstv.com\/news\/nation-world\/fact-check-team-will-the-doj-investigate-local-school-incidents<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/andy-mccarthy-doj-no-jurisdiction-school-board-meetings-ag-memo<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.nationalreview.com\/2021\/10\/the-biden-justice-departments-lawless-threat-against-american-parents\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/andy-mccarthy-doj-apos-no-135036962.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANikQkqW9-0Q74AiZkSNZxbbhJIuuponsPPVqxha4JjtlGNuJ30wFr0mUIp1iTzK3IAYn2ybGK1l8SaTtN4_aSKe80-bKUA178x0G8d4rZQTO4yc4MeyEheTBMhrafU0oNkoGJXPshCqXWkdfjgPuommv3YjxSJUWRGxUF8L6Y_Y<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/stephen-miller-oig-merrick-garland-fbi-parents-crt-schools<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/politics\/sen-grassley-joins-republican-senators-demands-of-ag-garland-following-threats-memo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Joshua Larkin, Staff Writer Attorney General Merrick Garland came under fire for a recent memorandum he sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. attorney\u2019s offices on October 4, 2021.[1] In his memo, the Attorney General ordered federal law enforcement authorities to meet with \u201cfederal, state, local, tribal, [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":13434,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[410,2981,3342],"class_list":["post-13433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-juris-blog","tag-department-of-justice","tag-joshua-larkin","tag-school-board"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13433"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13433\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13435,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13433\/revisions\/13435"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}