Frequently Searched

Tennessee Dad’s Rights Vindicated in Federal Court Decision

September 26, 2023

A dad in Tennessee was unfairly banned from attending his daughter’s softball games—all because he sent a message to his daughter’s coach. But now, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision upholding that dad’s rights, after the Goldwater filed a friend-of-the-court brief on his behalf. The decision vindicates Randall McElhaney’s First Amendment liberties, and reaffirms parents’ right to criticize public officials, including school employees.

The trouble began when the Upperman High School varsity softball coach adopted a new policy strictly forbidding parents from speaking to the coach about playing time. Additionally, all practices were “closed,” so parents were forbidden from attending.

That’s when Randall texted the coach about his daughter’s playing time. The message was respectful; it did not contain any name-calling, profanity, or even a hint that the parent would go over the coach’s head. But the coach still took issue with the text message and reported the breach of his policy to the principal. The principal, coach, and athletic director then had a meeting with the dad and suspended him from attending games for a week.

To be clear, the suspension was entirely based on the text message Randall sent to the coach. But there was no issue with him texting the coach—it was all about the content of that message.

Randall then sued the coach, and various school officials who upheld his suspension, in federal court, arguing that the suspension violated his First Amendment rights. Under the First Amendment, it is unconstitutional for government officials to retaliate against individuals for protected speech. But the district court didn’t even bother deciding whether the school violated his First Amendment rights by suspending him. Instead, the court held that even if the school violated his rights, it was not “clearly established” that the school could not suspend him for speaking to the coach about playing time. Thus, the coach and other school officials were entitled to “qualified immunity,” a policy doctrine made up by judges to protect government officials when the officials violate constitutional rights.

Goldwater’s amicus brief in support of Randall’s rights argued that by not determining whether the coach violated Randall’s constitutional rights, the district court failed to understand the right actually threatened. It’s not just the right to talk to a high school softball coach about playing time. Rather, it is the right of a parent to speak to a public-school employee about his daughter when that employee has consistent interactions with the student.

The Supreme Court has recognized that parents have a fundamental right and duty to control and direct the education and upbringing of their children. In fact, this is one of the oldest fundamental rights recognized by the Supreme Court. Yet the district court threw it aside with little more than a nod. If the district court realized this was the right at issue, then the court would have come to a very different conclusion about whether the coach violated the dad’s “clearly established” rights. That’s why Goldwater’s brief urged the Sixth Circuit to recognize the real right in question and provide protection for this fundamental liberty.

In suspending a father from attending his daughter’s games for a week, school officials violated the First Amendment by retaliating against Randall for protected speech. And they intruded on the right of a parent to direct and manage the care, custody, control, and education of his child—all rights the Supreme Court has called fundamental. Unfortunately, public schools across the country are similarly infringing on parents’ right to direct their children’s upbringing—but in courtrooms and capitol buildings nationwide, Goldwater is fighting back, and empowering parents to make decisions that best meet their kids’ needs.

While the Sixth Circuit did not ground its decision in the fundamental rights of all parents, the court nevertheless upheld Randall’s rights as constitutionally protected, recognizing that all citizens—especially parents—have the right to criticize public officials. The court made clear that parents have a right to criticize those who teach their children, an important holding when school boards across the country are punishing parents for speaking out.

Ultimately, Randall was absolutely exercising his free speech rights in questioning his daughter’s playing time. And the government cannot punish individuals, especially parents, for their protected speech. Thankfully, the Sixth Circuit sided with parents, and Goldwater, in holding just that.

Adam Shelton is a Staff Attorney at the Goldwater Institute.

 

 

More on this issue

Donate Now

Help all Americans live freer, happier lives. Join the Goldwater Institute as we defend and strengthen freedom in all 50 states.

Donate Now

Since 1988, the Goldwater Institute has been in the liberty business — defending and promoting freedom, and achieving more than 400 victories in all 50 states. Donate today to help support our mission.

We Protect Your Rights

Our attorneys defend individual rights and protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Need Help? Submit a case.

Get Connected to Goldwater

Sign up for the latest news, event updates, and more.