Imagine a government so eager to silence dissent that it scrambles to slap a federal label on parents just for speaking out at school board meetings.
The Washington Examiner reported that that’s the unsettling picture painted by newly uncovered documents from America First Legal, revealing the Justice Department’s desperate hunt for a legal excuse under former Attorney General Merrick Garland. It’s a story that should make any freedom-loving American pause.
The crux of this controversy is the Biden administration’s apparent push to target parents as domestic threats over their objections to school policies, culminating in a memo from Garland on October 4, 2021, after cozy coordination with the National School Boards Association (NSBA).
Let’s rewind to the beginning: internal communications show the DOJ actively seeking a “federal hook” to justify cracking down on parents voicing concerns at local school board meetings.
These weren’t shadowy conspirators—these were moms and dads worried about mask mandates, critical race theory in classrooms, and transgender policies in schools. Yet, the NSBA had the audacity to liken them to domestic terrorists in a letter that set this whole fiasco in motion.
On October 1, 2021, Tamarra Matthews-Johnson, counsel to Garland, forwarded press clips about the NSBA’s inflammatory letter to Kevin Chambers in the Deputy Attorney General’s Office, noting, “Just checking that you were aware.”
Chambers shot back with a telling reply: “We’re aware; the challenge here is finding a federal hook.” Talk about a candid admission—they knew they were on shaky ground but pressed forward anyway.
The very next day, Sparkle Sooknanan, then a deputy associate U.S. attorney general, emailed Civil Rights Division attorneys with an urgent “quick-turn request” to pinpoint enforceable laws related to alleged threats against school board members.
She looped in heavyweights like Robert Moossy and Pamela Karlan, asking if this could be “actionable.” It’s almost comical how fast they wanted to turn parental frustration into a federal case.
Karlan, however, wasn’t so quick to jump on board, initially advising Sooknanan that the issue would “likely fall outside of our jurisdiction.” She even doubled down later, stating, “I think this is the end of the line.” Wise words, but sadly, not the final ones in this saga.
By October 3, 2021, a career attorney in the Civil Rights Division raised serious red flags to Moossy about the lack of legal grounding for federal action.
This attorney bluntly noted that most behaviors cited in the NSBA letter were “protected by the First Amendment” and fell under local laws like trespassing, not federal jurisdiction. Sounds like someone still remembers the Constitution.
That same attorney went further, pointing out that only three incidents in the NSBA letter might qualify as a “true threat,” and even one of those wasn’t tied to the hot-button issues like masks.
“It seems that we are ramping up an awful lot of federal manpower for what is currently a non-federal conduct,” they wrote. That’s a polite way of saying this was a massive overreach.
Undeterred by these concerns, suggestions floated within the DOJ to mimic laws like the FACE Act—originally designed to protect access to abortion clinics—to criminalize physical obstruction at school board meetings. It’s a creative stretch, but one has to wonder: since when did passionate debate become akin to blocking a clinic door? This reeks of legal gymnastics to silence dissent.
Despite internal skepticism, the machine kept churning, and on October 4, 2021, Garland issued a department-wide memo mobilizing federal authorities to address the so-called threats.
This wasn’t a spontaneous decision; it followed days of coordination with the NSBA and internal debates over shaky legal footing. The timing alone raises eyebrows about the true intent here.
America First Legal, the group behind these revelations, claims the documents complete the timeline linking the NSBA’s inflammatory letter to Garland’s heavy-handed response.
Their president, Gene Hamilton, didn’t mince words: “The Biden Administration appears to have engaged in a conspiracy that was ultimately aimed at depriving parents of two fundamental rights—the right to speak, and the right to direct the upbringing of their children.” That’s a serious charge, and the evidence seems to back up the concern.
Let’s be clear: parents showing up to school board meetings aren’t storming the Capitol—they’re exercising their First Amendment rights. Comparing them to domestic terrorists, as the NSBA did, isn’t just hyperbolic; it’s a deliberate attempt to chill free speech. The DOJ’s willingness to entertain this narrative is a troubling sign of priorities gone awry.
What’s at stake here isn’t just a legal technicality; it’s the fundamental right of parents to have a say in their children’s education without fear of federal retaliation. When the government scrambles for a “hook” to target citizens over policy disagreements, it sends a message: stay quiet, or else. That’s not the America most of us signed up for.