A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has taken the unusual step of editing one of its rulings in a parental-rights case.
According to Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, the panel, led by ultraliberal jurist Steven Reinhardt, decided to review its ruling in Fields v. Palmdale School District -- a 2005 decision in which the judges told parents in Palmdale, Calif., they had no constitutional right to object to any sex-ed curriculum offered in public schools.
The parents originally filed suit complaining that their elementary-school-age children were wrongly subjected to a sex survey.
Staver, who represents the parents in an appeal of the case, said even though the judges didn't change the outcome, they did modify their ruling.
"They took out one of the egregious sentences, which said, '(Parental) rights (do not) extend beyond the threshold of the school door,' " he told CitizenLink. "I think they took that sentence out so as not to offend the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who may ultimately hear this case."
It is unusual for an appeals-court panel of judges, Staver added, to reconsider its own decision.
"If asked to do so, they will usually deny the request outright," he said. "Or they actually rehear and reconsider the case, and write a new opinion. This was an unusual step."
But Staver said the different wording doesn't really change things -- the thrust of this case is still the same, and is in dire need of reversal.
"They clearly said that parents have no constitutional rights to object to any kind of sex-education curriculum that is presented to their children by the public schools -- period," he explained. "The school is free to do anything it wants to, no matter how outrageous, and the parents cannot object."
Staver said he's still waiting to see if the full panel of judges in the 9th Circuit will come together to hear the case, which is known as an en banc hearing.
"If they don't hear it en banc," he said, "we'll ask the Supreme Court to get involved."
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the 9th Circuit judges have come under tremendous fire since the decision was published -- not just from the public, but also from other appeals courts.
"The 3rd Circuit, which Justice Samuel Alito formerly served on, examined this 9th Circuit decision while considering their own case," he noted. "They concluded, 'We don’t agree with his extreme position.' "
Interestingly, Hausknecht said the 9th Circuit panel still maintains that the only proper place for parental input is during school board elections.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To learn more about the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' liberal track record, and its most notorious judge, Steven Reinhardt, read the Citizen magazine special report, "Judge Gone Wild."
