Federal Court: Parents Rights Are Protected by the Constitution; Mendacious Michael “Hundreds of Millions” Gottesman and AG Platkin Appear To Be on the Wrong Side of the Law

A federal district court in California just blew up Mendacious Michael “Hundreds of Millions” Gottesman’s claim that school boards — such as Colts Neck’s — are full of “right-wing extremists” who passed parental notification policies that are contrary to the law. In a resounding summary judgment, the court ruled that parents have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their child is transitioning genders at school and permanently blocked a California law that abrogated that right. So rather than the “right-wing extremists” of Gottesman’s fevered imagination, it turns out that Colts Neck and other elected boards were safeguarding their local parents’ constitutional rights. This places Gottesman’s harassment of Colts Neck as well as Attorney General Matt Platkin’s lawsuits against four New Jersey school boards in an entirely different light: it is now Gottesman and Platkin who appear to be on the wrong side of the law. While it is a district court opinion that is subject to appeal, it is based on a long line of US Supreme Court precedents and provides a sound legal basis for constitutional protection of parental rights. New Jersey school boards should take heart and know that their policies have been judged to align with fundamental constitutional rights.

A slam-dunk ruling in favor of parental rights. The case, Mirabelli v. Olson, was filed by two California teachers who objected to being forced to hide the truth from parents. The court found that the plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments were so strong that the case was decided by summary judgment, which means it didn’t even make it to trial. Likewise, the strength of the case led the court to issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of a California law that prohibited parental notification. In other words, it was a slam-dunk decision in favor of parental rights.

The ruling provides a winning roadmap for defenders of parents rights in New Jersey. Even though the case was brought in California, it has implications for New Jersey because the court found that such parental rights are backed by a long line of US Supreme Court precedents:

The State [of California is], in essence, asking this Court to limit, and restrict a common-sense and legally sound description by the United States Supreme Court of parental rights. That, this Court will not do.

In essence, the court provides a winning roadmap for defenders of parental rights in any state — including New Jersey — because federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local law or regulation. Which is to say that any parent or teacher in New Jersey would have the same federal constitutional right, and no New Jersey law or regulation can abrogate that right. We know Gottesman is a progressive zealot who will stop at nothing, but Attorney General Platkin (and his successor) should be paying attention.

It is true that a different district or an appeals court could rule differently (see below), and the issue may ultimately end up with the US Supreme Court, but a federal district judge has spoken loudly and clearly based on Supreme Court precedents, which is a significant step in favor of parental rights in any state, including New Jersey.

The decision supports the Colts Neck school board and undercuts Gottesman. The court’s decision puts Gottesman’s harassment of the Colts Neck School Board after it passed a “Parental Bill of Rights” in an entirely new light. Gottesman claims that the parental bill of rights violates New Jersey discrimination laws. But even if Gottesman is right about New Jersey law (and we are not saying he is), the California court’s ruling makes explicitly clear that parents’ constitutional rights are superior to any New Jersey law. The Colts Neck “Parental Bill of Rights” now rests on very solid constitutional foundations; Gottesman’s harassment looks like … harassment on the wrong side of the law.

Furthermore, contrary to Gottesman’s (false) claim that the Colts Neck board is made up of “right-wing extremists,” the board is actually made up of elected members from a community protecting their local parents’ constitutional rights. Gottesman should apologize or at least cease his harassment.

The same is true for school boards that passed parental notification policies and were sued by Platkin. The same is true for school boards of Hanover, Middletown, Marlboro, and Manalapan-Englishtown, which Platkin filed civil rights complaints against and which resulted in a New Jersey Superior Court blocking their parental rights policies. Another 18 school boards have removed NJDOE’s Policy 5756, which had been used to block parental notification policies in districts across the state. A related case of a parent challenging Policy 5756 is now before the federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. All of these cases will likely be influenced by the California court’s ruling.

As a result of this decision, defenders of parental rights in New Jersey should take heart. It appears likely that it is Gottesman and Platkin who are on the wrong side of the law. We suspect that there are a large number of school boards who have been intimidated by the actions of Gottesman and Platkin. They should know that parental rights policies have now been found by a federal court to enshrine fundamental constitutional rights and that they have sound legal footing to stand against Gottesman and Platkin.