Author: TNLegal

On December 5, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in graphic designer Lorie Smith’s case, 303 Creative v. Elenis. At stake is whether artists—indeed all Americans—will be free to say what they believe without fear of government punishment. Lorie’s case has become even more important after the Senate’s shameful vote last week on the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act,” a bill which demonstrates that officials at the highest level of government are increasing hostile to free speech and religious liberty. No one should be forced to say something they don’t believe, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the freedom of speech of all Americans in 303 Creative. 

True North Legal, Reason for Life, and Iowa’s Family Leader filed an amicus brief in support of 303 Creative, which you can read HERE. In this short video, hear True North Legal General Counsel Renee Carlson discuss the case with Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Matt Sharp.

Some of you probably saw recent headlines about the Peace Officer Licensing Standards and Training (POST) Board’s proposed revisions to its rules relating to peace officer education and licensing. Unfortunately, it is clear that these proposed revisions to the rules significantly infringe on religious freedom as well as other rights protected under United States and Minnesota constitutions.

In the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR), the POST Board claims these rules are necessary in order tostop the “…continued erosion of the public’s trust of law enforcement officers and agencies because [of] officers’ discriminatory conduct, and officer participation in hate groups..” However, if passed these rules will do the just the opposite. In its current draft form, the POST Board’s new revisions to the rules relating to education and licensing of peace officers will create serious legal and policy implications affecting numerous peace officers across the state.

That’s why True North Legal (TNL), a legal initiative associated with Minnesota Family Council, along with other allied organizations, took the first step to oppose these egregious rules. We submitted a comment and request for a contested case rulemaking proceeding consistent with Minnesota law, and we are asking you to do the same. As further discussed, and referenced in the legal analysis provided in our comment, these rule as drafted are clearly unconstitutional, violating the Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly and Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.

Read our comments now:

July 19, 2022

Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training 

1600 University Avenue West Suite 200 

St. Paul, MN 55104 

Email: POSTrules.POST@state.mn.us

RE: POST Board’s Revisions to the Rules Relating to Education and Licensing of Peace Officers

Dear Members of the POST Board,

As [insert member of the public, organization, or name,] I object to the POST Board’s proposed revisions to the rules relating to education and licensing for peace officers. More specifically, I am concerned about the proposed revisions defining discriminatory conduct and related behavior. 

To be clear, [I/we] have a common understanding that no one, including peace officers, should engage in unlawful discrimination. However, these proposed revisions are extremely broad and offer no clear guidance to the many officers across the state that will be impacted by these proposed changes to the rules.

In fact, as currently drafted, the rules are clearly unconstitutional, violating the Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly and Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. It is for these reasons that [I/we] request a contested case rulemaking proceeding on the proposed revisions to the rule consistent with Minnesota law.

[name and address]

Renee Carlson is True North Legal’s General Counsel. The piece below is adapted from her legislative testimony earlier this week about parental rights, which you can view here.

Parents’ rights to direct the education of their children does not end when their child goes to school. But are Minnesota schools allowing parents to exercise that right? History is telling. Over the last decade local state agencies, educational organizations, lobbyists, school boards, and administrators have created policies that undermine parental rights. Consider these few examples: 

·       Minnesota State High School League’s (MSHSL) decision to allow males to play on female sports teams despite significant parent testimony opposing the board’s changes;

·       The Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) implementation of the Transgender Toolkit over the objections and concerns of many parents; 

·       The Public Educator Licensing Standards Board’s (PELSB) lack of transparency with regard to changing teacher licensing standards and cultural competency as statutorily defined. 

Practically, these changes opened the door to school policies that: Circumvent parental notice in matters relating to students’ physical and emotional health, discipline students for acting consistent with various religious and moral upbringings, teach students about sexuality and how to obtain contraceptives without parental knowledge, and allow teachers to use curriculum that would be considered pornographic in almost any other context outside of diverse literary content.

Nearly 100 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right and responsibility of parents over their minor children, especially in matters relating to their child’s education and upbringing, holding “a child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations…”[1] After all, as the Court later affirmed, “parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment.”[2]

Yet, Minnesota schools have implemented policies that starkly depart from this precedent, despite Minnesota’s recognition of the constitutional rights of parents. Minnesota’s regard for parent’ rights is clearly evidenced by one of the strongest educational opt-out laws in the country, as well as state statutes that require parental involvement in education. However, the spirit and intent of the law has fallen on deaf ears. Schools have continued to put in place egregious policies inconsistent with clearly established law regarding the role of parents in the upbringing of their children [3]. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court have become secondary resources for many decisionmakers when interpreting parental rights laws in this state. This leads to policies that contradict the law, often marginalizing parents who do not champion a school’s beliefs about gender confusion, implicit bias, general disparities, and sensitive family life issues. Even greater tension exists when a school’s actions directly contradict parents’ moral teachings, often based on strong religious convictions. 

The urgency for legislation is not based on hypotheticals. In the last two weeks alone, I have received inquiries from parents representing five different school districts across the state, including a request from fifty parents representing over one hundred students, concerned about a policy that the school plans to adopt, which allows students to change their sex, and determine their gender identity without parental consent if the school determines that telling the parent would put the student at risk. Unfortunately, the school showed little regard, if any, for these parents’ concerns, including immigrant and refugee parents who speak English as a second language, insisting the law requires the school adopt this policy.

Two weeks ago, I met a middle school teacher despairing over his superintendent’s directive to keep a child’s new gender identity hidden from the child’s parents. Lawsuits against schools based on similar situations are pending in Wisconsin and Florida.

Another parent informed me that her child’s teacher shared matters about her personal sexual preferences during class and encouraged students in various forms of sexual experimentation. The parent’s desperate plea, “I will drive clear across the country for help. I will do anything!” really drives the point home.

These are Minnesotans’ stories, and there are more. 

Certainly, schools face many complex and difficult decisions in our current culture. Moreover, schools have a legitimate interest in the education, health, and safety of children that will one day be adults in our society.

But respecting the rights of parents to direct their child’s education should be the easiest decision schools make. When schools decide to circumvent open meeting law, disallow or severely limit public comment, administrators will not return emails, and the Minnesota Department of Education, along with other educational organizations, and school attorneys counsel schools to implement policies that blatantly violate parental rights, the legislature needs to act. 

Legislation recognizing the supremacy of parental rights is not a partisan plot to micromanage schools and teachers. Such claims significantly devalue the commitment of parents to their children. Rather, this legislation is a response to the erosion of parental rights in our state, and the current policies that only drive a wedge between parents and schools. Therefore, we strongly encourage the Minnesota legislature to pass laws that restore parents’ rights to decide what is best regarding the education and upbringing of their children. 

___________

[1] Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).

[2] Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979).

[3] Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972) (“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”).