6 days ago
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana mom sues school district after it banned her for recording a meeting
A mom and a national public policy organization are taking her northeast Indiana school district to court to challenge a school policy they say violates her First and 14th Amendment rights.
The Goldwater Institute, a conservative-leaning Arizona-based think tank, filed a complaint Aug. 12 in the Northern District of Indiana that, if successful, could overturn the school district's meeting recording policy and clarify a gray area of First Amendment law.
Whitley County Consolidated Schools' policy says a building administrator must first give permission before parents and others can record private school meetings such as parent-teacher conferences.
Goldwater argues that the policy is unconstitutional, saying there is "no compelling, substantial, important, or even rational reason" to prohibit parents from recording.
"We think there's a clear idea that the First Amendment protects more than just verbal speech. It protects conduct, and especially conduct that's inherently expressive," Goldwater attorney Adam Shelton said. "We think that presents a very good and important First Amendment question."
In a previous statement to IndyStar, district Superintendent Laura McDermott said Nicole Graves was restricted from campus for "a pattern of aggressive interactions with school staff and public commentary involving children other than her own," not for expressing concerns.
IndyStar has reached out to McDermott regarding the newly filed litigation.
Last year, Graves recorded a meeting with her school principal about an incident on her daughter's school bus concerning the driver's behavior. She decided to record the meeting so she could accurately recount what was said, according to Goldwater.
Discontent with the principal's answers, she posted part of the recording on social media. The district then notified Graves in a letter, which IndyStar obtained, that she broke policy and was given a school grounds ban and restrictions on staff communications. The punishment has since expired.
As she brings her fight to court, Graves said she is surprised it has come to this but not that the school won't back down. She said she is continuing to fight to establish better policies for parents and protect children.
"This is not fun for me. This is not something I ever thought I would have to fight for," she said. "But I am more than happy to stand up and fight and talk to who I need to talk to to get things to change because I think it's important for all the families in this school district."
With her four children still attending school in the district, Graves is concerned about retaliation. She said she is keeping a close eye on her children's schooling and is "terrified" the school will ban her again.
The right to record public officials engaged their official duties in a public place has been solidified through previous case law. Goldwater, through its complaint, is attempting to deepen those rights by arguing that some private conversations are protected as well.
In its complaint, Goldwater argues that people have the right to record meetings with government officials as long as the recording doesn't violate the rights of other private individuals and the person is lawfully present.
"When it's just a conversation between a parent and a school official about their child and doesn't implicate any privacy rights of other students, we think a parent has the right to record that meeting," Shelton said.
If the school restricted Graves from talking about the meeting or drafting a transcript, Shelton previously said, it would undoubtedly violate the First Amendment. He questions why a recording would be any different.
The complaint also says the policy violates Graves' 14th Amendment rights to control her child's education in several instances, overlapping with their First Amendment argument.
Goldwater is seeking an injunction halting the recording policy and a judgment finding the school district violated Graves' First and 14th Amendment rights.
This is Goldwater's second crack in two years at clarifying First Amendment case law on recording conversations with school officials.
The institute petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 to take up the case of a Massachusetts dad denied the ability to video-record his son's special education accommodation conferences. The high court did not take up the appeal after a district court ruled the act of recording was not protected by the First Amendment.
Shelton said the institute is hopeful the courts will take a full look at their arguments in Graves' case.
"We think we have a very good argument here that the recording of this meeting is protected both by the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment," he said. "We look forward to expressing those ideas in court."
The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
