News Alert

In a big victory for opponents of Common Core, the Missouri court of appeals dismissed the State’s appeal, leaving in place a lower court decision that blocked Missouri’s membership in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”).  The ruling, issued on November 17^th, dismissed as moot an appeal by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, and thereby upheld the lower court’s decision that Missouri’s participation in SBAC was a violation of the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution and numerous federal and state statutes.   

The Compact Clause challenge to SBAC was first conceived and implemented by Missouri attorney, D. John Sauer, of the James Otis Law Group, based in St. Louis, who brought the action on behalf of state taxpayers.   The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, filed a friend of the court brief supporting the lower court decision in that case.

Since then, the Thomas More Law Center and the James Otis Law Group have joined forces to bring similar challenges to the constitutionality of the Common Core testing consortia in several other states, including North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia. Erin Mersino, TMLC senior trial counsel, has worked alongside Sauer in developing the three additional lawsuits. 

Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, commenting on the collaboration between the two firms.  “John Sauer is an extraordinary attorney.  We are privileged to work alongside John.  In this truly cooperative effort, several other attorneys have donated their time as local co-counsel: Arnold Fleck, of Bismarck, ND, Jeffrey Kimble and Ryan Kennedy of Robinson & McElwee, PLLC, in Charleston, WV, and Robert J. Rohl of Johnson Eiesland Law Offices, PC, in Rapid City, SD.”

John Sauer obtained his law degree from Harvard Law School where he graduated magna cum laude. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney. He eventually entered into private practice and recently founded the James Otis Law Group. Prior to his law degree, Sauer attended Duke University before attending Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He subsequently received his Masters from the University of Notre Dame.

Thompson, commenting on the appeals court ruling, said “The effect of the court of appeals ruling is to leave in place the first and only state court ruling that tears down the Common Core edifice constructed by the federal government.”

Shortly after the lower court decision holding SBAC unconstitutional, the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 2, later signed by Governor Nixon, which expressly prohibits the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) from using funds to pay SBAC license fees or membership dues. An opinion from DESE General Counsel stated that the language contained in H.B. 2 specifically prohibited the state from participating as a member or as a licensee of SBAC and recommended that Missouri’s membership in SBAC be terminated immediately.

As a part of its continuing efforts to help parents combat Common Core, the Thomas More Law Center developed a Test Refusal and Student Privacy Protection Form and a Common Core Resource Page as a general reference and guide.

Continuing its legal battle to stop the federal government from usurping control over the nation’s elementary and secondary public schools, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI filed a third lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state’s implementation of Common Core and its participation in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”). 

This latest challenge to the Common Core Curriculum and SBAC was filed last week against South Dakota Governor, Dennis Daugaard, and other state officials on behalf of two South Dakota taxpayers, Shelli Grinager and Amber Mauricio.  Shelli Grinager is the mother of three school aged children and Amber Mauricio is the mother of five.

These Plaintiffs seek to stop South Dakota from paying yearly SBAC membership fees totaling over $600,000 by state taxpayers on the grounds that SBAC is an unconstitutional compact. Its creation was never approved by Congress, as required by the Compact Clause, which states that “[n]o state shall, without the consent of Congress . . . enter into any agreement or compact with another state.” The lawsuit claims other violations of federal and South Dakota laws dealing with public education.

Shelli  Grinager, a West River plaintiff, and Amber Mauricio, an East River plaintiff, have both seen their school aged children break down in tears due to the amount of pressure that teachers and schools were subjecting them to in the name of passing the SBAC tests.

Grinager, a former school board member, PTA president and advocate for students and families, has fought against Common Core since the beginning, speaking out against the roll out of the high pressure SBAC tests. Last year, Grinager was forced to start homeschooling her children, after two of her children were denied more challenging math because they had to stick to the rigid Common Core curriculum. She said, “The public school environment has become more about testing our children than teaching them.”

Amber Mauricio’s fight against Common Core began when she attempted to “opt out” her children from the SBAC testing. The school ignored her opt out request and tested her children anyway.  Mauricio was alarmed by the nature of some Common Core aligned questions asked of her children which sought to examine how they would behave in certain situations and what their home life is like.

As in the two earlier lawsuits, which challenged the constitutionality of SBAC and Common Core in North Dakota and West Virginia, the Thomas More Law Center partnered with D. John Sauer of the James Otis Law Group based in St. Louis, MO.   South Dakota attorney Robert J. Rohl of Johnson Eiesland Law Offices, PC located in Rapid City, SD is assisting as local co-counsel.

The lawsuit was filed in the Hughes County Circuit Court.

Click here to read the South Dakota Complaint

The North Dakota and West Virginia lawsuits follow the success of an earlier lawsuit filed by Mr. Sauer that stopped Missouri’s implementation of Common Core. That case is currently on appeal.  The Thomas More Law Center filed a friend of the court brief in support of upholding the Missouri district court decision.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on behalf of the Law Center, “Employing an insidious bureaucratic system, the Federal Government directs what and how American students learn, and effectively eliminates the fundamental rights of parents to control the education of their children.”

In school districts across the country, administrators subject children, who obey their parents’ wishes and decline to participate in Common Core standardized testing, to unbelievable punishments.  Students have been suspended, refused entrance into their classrooms, refused bathroom privileges, stripped of their academic and extracurricular honors and awards, removed from athletic participation, and punished with “sit-and-stare” policies. “Sit-and-stare” is a practice that forces students to sit at their assigned desk with no materials, books, or paper in silence for multiple hours during testing.

Forty-three states initially joined either SBAC or the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (“PARCC”), a cornerstone for Common Core implementation under direction of the federal government. However, due to growing opposition from parents and teachers, several states have since canceled their membership and endured punishments for doing so.

As a part of its efforts to help parents combat Common Core, the Thomas More Law Center developed a Test Refusal and Student Privacy Protection Form and a Common Core Resource Page as a general reference and guide.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, is defending 26-year old pro-life advocate, Brian Ingalls, against an unprecedented charge by the Maine Attorney General alleging that he was illegally loud in front of the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Portland, Maine. 

The Maine Attorney General filed the civil rights complaint against Ingalls, threatening the hard-working father with fines of up to $5,000, and seeking to ban him from coming within 50 feet of any Planned Parenthood facility.

According to the Attorney General’s complaint, by publically speaking out against abortion and preaching about Jesus, Brian Ingalls “disrupted the safe and effective delivery of health services.”  For reasons that can only be described as politically motivated, the Attorney General has transformed an unverified noise complaint by Planned Parenthood into a civil rights complaint against a young Christian pro-life advocate. 

The Thomas More Law Center is no stranger to the City of Portland’s efforts to silence pro-life speech and protect Planned Parenthood’s business in the city.  Portland previously banned pro-life advocates from the public sidewalk in front of the same Planned Parenthood abortion clinic by enacting a 39-foot buffer zone around all of the entrances, exits, and driveways of the business. 

The Thomas More Law Center successfully challenged the constitutionality of Portland’s 39-foot buffer zone ordinance in federal court and obtained a judgment declaring that the buffer zone violated the First Amendment. Now, the Attorney General has launched a new attack against pro-life speech just days after the judgment was entered.  This is the first time that the Maine Civil Rights Act has been used against pro-life advocates in an attempt to stifle their message and create a de facto 50-foot buffer zone.

Erin Kuenzig, TMLC’s trial counsel who successfully represented pro-life sidewalk counselors in the buffer zone case, commented on the Attorney General’s new lawsuit. “The Attorney General’s baseless pro-abortion tactic seeks to silence pro-life speech.  Such biased action by a state’s chief law enforcement officer is not only unconstitutional, but it also corrupts the entire justice system.”

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel and a former prosecuting attorney, added: “The Attorney General’s actions in this case are a blatant abuse of her powers to aid the pro-abortion political establishment dominating the City of Portland.”

The Attorney General’s complaint relies solely on Planned Parenthood’s complaint to the Portland Police Department alleging that Ingalls could be heard inside of the building. His continued preaching has now been deemed a civil rights violation by the Maine attorney general.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, late last week, filed a lawsuit against West Virginia Governor Earl Tomblin and several state officials to stop the state’s implementation of Common Core and its participation in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”).  The lawsuit claims that West Virginia’s funding and participation in Common Core violates the U.S. Constitution, as well as federal and state laws that prohibit the federal government from usurping control over public school education.  The lawsuit was filed in the Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia on behalf of two West Virginia taxpayers.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) is co-counsel in the case with D. John Sauer of the James Otis Law Group based in St. Louis, MO.  Two prominent West Virginia attorneys, Jeffrey Kimble and Ryan Kennedy of Robinson & McElwee, PLLC, are assisting as local counsel.

TMLC’s lawsuit seeks to stop West Virginia’s payment of membership fees of over $1.5 million per year on the grounds that SBAC, to which West Virginia is a member, is an unconstitutional compact because it was never approved by Congress. The Compact Clause of the United States Constitution provides that “[n]o state shall, without the consent of Congress . . . enter into any agreement or compact with another state.”

West Virginia’s SBAC membership agreement forces West Virginia schools to align their curriculum with Common Core.           

The two Plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, Angela Summers and Fred Dailey, are prominent members of West Virginia Against Common Core and for over two years have voiced deep concerns about their state’s participation in Common Core.

Summers has five grandchildren.    She began her battle against Common Core in 2013 over the new Common Core aligned math being taught to her grandchildren.  Her concerns grew as she became aware of the federal government’s intrusion into local classrooms, federalized collection of student data, and the requirement of excessive testing.  Summers says that the battle against Common Core is a battle “we cannot lose.  If we lose, we will lose our children.  If we lose our children, we will lose this nation.”

Dailey, who also has grandchildren, is an Environmental Engineer with a Masters degree. He worked as a Plant Manager for a major Chemical Manufacturing facility for 10 years prior to retiring. Dailey explains one of his reasons for getting involved in the lawsuit, “I strongly believe that the education of our children is best done locally with choices made by parents, teachers, and locally elected Boards of Education.”

The Thomas More Law Center and Sauer filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of state taxpayers against North Dakota officials five months ago.  A decision in that case is still pending.

Both the North Dakota and West Virginia lawsuits follow the success of a previous lawsuit filed by Mr. Sauer that stopped Missouri’s implementation of Common Core. That case is currently on appeal.  The Thomas More Law Center filed a friend of the court brief in support of upholding the Missouri district court decision.

Forty-three states initially joined either SBAC or the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (“PARCC”), to implement Common Core under federal government oversight. However, several states have since canceled their membership due to growing opposition from parents and teachers.

Click here to read the full complaint

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on behalf of the Law Center, “The unspoken agenda of Common Core is to undermine the fundamental right of parents to control the education of their children. It’s an insidious bureaucratic system in which the Federal Government takes control of what and how American students learn.  Teachers who complain about the Common Core are muzzled by threats of discipline or dismissal.”

In school districts across the country, administrators subject children, who obey their parents’ wishes and decline to participate in Common Core standardized testing, to unbelievable punishments.  Students have been suspended, refused entrance into their classrooms, refused bathroom privileges, stripped of their academic and extracurricular honors and awards, removed  from athletic participation, and punished with “sit-and-stare” policies. “Sit-and-stare” is a practice that forces students to sit at their assigned desk with no materials, books, or paper in silence for multiple hours during testing.

As a part of its efforts to help parents combat Common Core, the Thomas More Law Center developed a Test Refusal and Student Privacy Protection Form and a Common Core Resource Page as a general reference and guide.

The North Dallas Chapter of Overpasses for America and its leader Valerie Villarreal, yesterday, obtained a federal court consent judgment against the City of Dallas, Texas, which declared that the Dallas city ordinance prohibiting demonstrations on city overpasses violated their constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in August 2014, challenging the enactment of the ordinance which restricted the plaintiffs’ right to demonstrate and display signs calling for the impeachment of President Obama and the end to illegal immigration on city overpasses over designated highways.

U.S. District Judge David Godbey for the Northern District Court of Texas entered the consent judgment, marking the first time that the City of Dallas admitted its ordinance was an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Erin Mersino, TMLC Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented, “It is a good day for free speech. Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal may now resume their important demonstrations without fear of being fined or retaliated against by the City.”  

In November 2014, just three months after TMLC filed their initial lawsuit against the city, the Dallas City Council voted to repeal the ordinance. During the repeal process, however, the City refused to acknowledge that the ordinance unconstitutionally attacked Free Speech that criticized President Obama and the flood of illegal immigration encouraged by the Obama administration’s complete disregard of federal immigration laws. The judgment entered by the District Court, however, specifically declares that the Dallas ordinance was a violation of Overpasses for America’s First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly. The judgment also awarded nominal damages as requested by the Plaintiffs in recognition of the City of Dallas’ violation of the Overpasses members’ Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly rights, and provided a settlement amount for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Before the enactment of the City’s ordinance, the North Dallas Chapter of Overpasses for America had held over 75 demonstrations on the pedestrian overpasses in Dallas, without a single traffic incident. Nevertheless, the City Council moved forward with the restrictive ordinance under the guise that it was necessary for public safety.

Overpasses for America is a nonpartisan grassroots movement that calls for accountability among our nation’s leaders. Overpasses for America demonstrators frequently use pedestrian overpasses to spread their messages and to reach a large and diverse audience. Several cities, however, have sought to silence these concerned citizens.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, stated: “The concerns of a majority of Americans on crucial public issues have little impact on the Washington political establishment. That’s why it’s so important to defend the free speech rights of grassroots organizations like Overpasses for America, whose members feel it’s their patriotic duty to get their message out and mobilize their fellow citizens.”

TMLC is currently representing two plaintiffs in a case challenging a similar ordinance in the Town of Campbell, Wisconsin—that case is currently pending before the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.