Florida AG introduces ‘Office of Parental Rights' to take on school districts that violate laws
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced his office will start taking on cases involving parental rights violations on behalf of parents during a news conference in Jacksonville on Tuesday.
Uthmeier argued that, despite the state having some of the strongest parental rights laws in the nation, taking a school district to court over alleged violations can be a daunting and expensive task for everyday parents.
'The state needs to be here to help. So, we're creating this new office, we're gonna have a team of litigators focused on fighting the fights that parents bring to us. We still see far too many examples, especially in other states, but also in Florida where parents' rights are being infringed,' Uthmeier said.
The Office of Parental Rights will be tasked with battling school districts in the courts over alleged violations of the state's various parental rights laws - laws that have at times faced staunch criticism for limiting how issues like race and sexuality can be presented in the classroom.
Read: Bill mandating parental consent for STD treatments faces pushback from some Florida Republicans
Uthmeier explained complaints could include inappropriate library books on school shelves, unauthorized medical treatments, failure to inform parents about criminal charges facing school staff, and more.
Stephana Ferrell with the Florida Freedom to Read Project argued Uthmeier's plan could increase lawsuits against districts and cost taxpayers on both ends of the debate.
'They're threatening our underfunded districts with further litigation and at a cost to taxpayers who have decided that they want to properly fund our public schools,' Ferrell said.
[DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks]
She also argued the Florida Department of Education already has tools at its disposal to ensure districts comply with parental rights laws.
'And so this looks like the next step to bully books off the shelves against the will of the communities that have decided to maintain access to books,' Ferrell said.
But Uthmeier argued as Florida's chief legal officer, he has a responsibility to ensure state laws are followed.
[SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
When we asked about the potential cost to taxpayers that state-led lawsuits targeting school districts could carry, he argued there's no cost to 'fighting for the rights of parents and families'.
'We're certainly not looking to run up costs, but when it comes to fighting the right fights, I'll spend every dollar we have,' Uthmeier said.
Uthmeier also indicated his office plans to work with nonprofits and independent groups to help offset potential litigation costs.
Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
17 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill Gets Slimmed Down in Senate
WASHINGTON—President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is getting smaller just as Republicans head into a crucial week, after the Senate's rules arbiter decided several controversial provisions don't qualify for the special procedure the GOP is using to bypass Democratic opposition. The tax-and-spending megabill centers on extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, delivering on the spirit of his campaign promises to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, and providing big lump sums of money for border security and defense. Those new costs are partially offset by spending cuts, in particular to Medicaid.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP's attempt to limit courts' contempt powers
The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against a controversial provision in the Senate Republicans' megabill that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration. The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that limiting courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt violated the Senate's rules governing what can be passed with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) hailed the parliamentarian's decision as a major victory. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement responding to the development. 'But Senate Democrats stopped them cold. We successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' he said. The provision, tucked into the thousand-page bill House Republicans passed in May, would have required anyone suing the federal government to pay a bond before a court would be allowed to use its contempt power to enforce injunctions and other rulings. Courts have already ruled more than 190 times against the Trump administration since January. The controversial language received little notice when it came to the floor, and Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) later caused an uproar at a town hall meeting when he admitted he didn't know the provision was in the legislation when he voted for it. 'If enacted, this would have been one of the most brazen power grabs we've seen in American history — an attempt to let a future President Trump ignore court orders with impunity, putting him above the law,' Schumer said Sunday afternoon. 'Donald Trump is not above the law. And thanks to Senate Democrats – including the tireless work of Senator Durbin and the Judiciary Democrats – the courts can still hold him and any president accountable,' Schumer said.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Republicans order key panel to score extension of Trump tax cuts as budget neutral
Senate Republicans have directed the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to score the cost of extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts as a continuation of current policy that would not add significantly to federal deficits, which would allow them to make those tax rates permanent. The joint panel on taxation, which projects the deficit impact of all tax bills, scored the extension of 26 provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a continuation of 'current policy' and therefore budget neutral, which dramatically lowers the project cost of President Trump's megabill. In a score released Saturday, the JCT projects tax-related provisions of the Republican bill as adding $441.5 billion to the deficit over the next decade, instead of the $4 trillion that Democrats say would be the projected cost of the tax provisions if they were scored on a 'current law' baseline. Much of the 2017 tax law, including the reduction in individual income tax rates, is due to expire at the end of 2025. 'Republicans finally showed their hand, and it's completely dishonest. 'Current policy baseline' in a budget gimmick that is nothing more than smoke and mirrors instead of honest accounting. This bill will add trillions upon trillions of dollars to the national debt to fund tax breaks for billionaires — while Republicans want everyone to think it adds zero,' said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Budget Committee. 'Republicans who claim to care about fiscal responsibility should be outraged and doing everything they can to stop it. This is the Great Betrayal of working families where families lose, and billionaires win,' Merkley said. Senate Republicans have argued for months that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has authority under the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act to determine the baseline for scoring the budget reconciliation bill. Republicans argue that Congress has used an asymmetrical system for scoring spending bills and tax bills in recent decades, as extensions of spending reauthorizations are often scored as extensions of current policy and therefore as budget neutral while extensions of expiring tax law are scored as adding to the deficit. Democrats could challenge the Republicans' use of a 'current policy' baseline to score the extension of the expiring 2017 tax cuts as a violation of the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule states that changes in law that increase the deficit for fiscal years beyond the 10-year budget window are subject to a 60-vote point-of-order objection. If the parliamentarian rules that scoring the extension of the 2017 tax cuts as largely budget neutral in the years beyond 2034 as a violation of the Byrd Rule, Republicans may have to vote to override the parliamentarian or rewrite the bill.
