HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Fla. – A friend-of-the-court brief was filed at the U.S. Supreme Court Friday in a case that could redefine the rights of parents to represent their children in federal court without an attorney.
The case, Blake Andrew Warner v. Hillsborough County School Board, centers on whether parents can proceed pro se (without legal counsel) on behalf of their minor children under 28 U.S.C. 1654, a federal statute that allows parties to “conduct their own cases personally.”
The petition, filed on behalf of Blake Warner, of Hillsborough County, challenges a lower court ruling that barred him from representing his son in a lawsuit against the Hillsborough County School Board. Warner alleges that the school district’s redistricting lines are racially discriminatory.
RELATED: Lawsuit Filed Against Hillsborough County School Board For Alleged Segregation
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Warner could not proceed without a lawyer, citing a prohibition on non-attorney representation of minors in federal court.
The case highlights a stark divide among federal appellate courts over the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. 1654. At least three circuits—the Third, Sixth, and Ninth—have categorically barred non-attorney parents from representing their children in federal court.
Meanwhile, the Second, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have allowed exceptions, particularly in cases involving Social Security Income (SSI) benefits. The Fifth Circuit has taken a more nuanced approach, permitting parents to proceed pro se if state or federal law makes the child’s case the parent’s own.
In a recent decision, Raskin v. Dallas Independent School District, the Fifth Circuit held that Section 1654 does not impose an “absolute bar” on pro se parent representation. Judge James C. Ho, concurring in part, emphasized that the statute grants minors the right to appear pro se, and parents, as legal guardians, can assert that right on their behalf.
READ: Hillsborough County Seeks Business Sector Rep For CareerSource Workforce Development Board
The amici brief, authored by ADF attorneys, argues that the history and tradition of parental rights support a broad interpretation of Section 1654. The brief cites Supreme Court precedents, including Troxel v. Granville and Parham v. J.R., which affirm parents’ rights to make decisions for their children.
It also references common law traditions, where parents or guardians were empowered to act on behalf of minors in legal matters.
“Parents know and love their children best. Recognizing that, American courts have long protected their right to speak on their children’s behalf in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that parents’ right to speak for their children in court depends on their ability to hire an attorney—whether or not a parent can pay or find an attorney willing to take the case for free,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch. “This jeopardizes parents’ ability to protect their children’s best interests, like our clients Tammy Fournier, Gretchen Melton, and Carmilla Tatel were able to do when they sought to protect their children from radical gender identity ideology. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of this case to ensure that the parent-child relationship receives the legal protection it deserves.”
READ: Florida Regulators Approve $1.55 Billion In Hurricane-Related Costs For Tampa Electric, Duke Energy
The case has far-reaching implications for parents seeking to challenge school policies they believe violate their children’s rights. Without the ability to proceed pro se, many parents may be unable to afford legal representation, effectively barring them from accessing federal courts.
The amici brief highlights two cases where parents successfully sued school districts:
- In T.F. v. Kettle Moraine School District, a Wisconsin mother sued after the school disregarded her instructions to refer to her 12-year-old daughter by her legal name and female pronouns.
- In Tatel v. Mount Lebanon School District, parents challenged a Pennsylvania school district’s refusal to allow them to opt their first graders out of lessons on transgender issues.
Both cases underscore the importance of parental rights in education and the need for accessible legal remedies.
The case also touches on broader debates about the role of federal courts in education and the balance between parental rights and school authority. Critics of the lower court’s ruling argue that it undermines parents’ ability to protect their children from overreach by school officials.
“Parents’ ability to press their children’s rights should not depend on their ability to pay a lawyer,” the amici brief states. “If parents cannot proceed pro se, many children may be unable to bring their claims at all.”
The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to grant certiorari in the coming months. If the Court takes up the case, it could resolve the circuit split and provide clarity on the rights of parents to represent their children in federal court.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
