SALINE PARENTS v. GARLAND, 630 F.Supp.3d 201

On Oct. 4, 2021 the Attorney General issued a memo directing DOJ/FBI measures to address harassment and threats against school officials, distinguishing protected debate from threats or intimidation.
On Oct. 20, 2021 an internal FBI email created a threat tag (EDUOFFICIALS) to track threats against school administrators and encouraged use of the tag for threat assessment and analysis.
Plaintiffs: Saline Parents (an association) and six individual parents from Michigan and Virginia who publicly oppose certain school policies; they allege their speech and protests are constitutionally protected and nonviolent.
Plaintiffs sued Attorney General Garland in his official capacity seeking to enjoin the alleged "AG Policy," claiming it criminalizes and chills their speech and allegedly labels them as "domestic terrorists."
Plaintiffs pleaded First Amendment, Fifth Amendment (equal protection and parental rights), and RFRA claims; DOJ moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The Court granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, finding no imminent threat of enforcement and no cognizable reputational injury traceable to the AG materials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge (threat of enforcement chills speech)	Plaintiffs intend to continue advocacy and fear the AG/FBI measures will be enforced against them, chilling protected speech	Memo and FBI email are non-regulatory, informational steps that do not proscribe or compel conduct and thus create no imminent enforcement threat	No standing — memo/email are not regulatory/proscriptive and do not arguably proscribe plaintiffs' protected conduct; pre-enforcement injury not shown
Whether plaintiffs plausibly face reputational injury from being labeled "domestic terrorists"	AG Policy and related events (e.g., NSBA letter) have stigmatized plaintiffs and will imminently harm reputation	The AG memo does not label individuals as terrorists or create a reputational association; NSBA letter is private and not part of DOJ policy	No standing — plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable, imminent reputational injury traceable to the AG materials
Whether the organizational plaintiff has independent standing	Saline Parents asserts member and direct organizational injuries from the same conduct	Defendant contends organizational standing rises or falls with individual members' standing and the memo causes no organizational injury	No standing — organizational standing depends on individuals, who lack standing; direct organizational injury not established

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal required if none)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (pre-enforcement standing test for threatened enforcement)
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) (informational or investigatory government actions may be non-justiciable if not regulatory or proscriptive)
Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, 948 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (pre-enforcement challenge requires threatened enforcement be sufficiently imminent)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (First Amendment does not protect true threats or intimidation)
Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) (government labeling can constitute cognizable reputational injury in some contexts)
Matthew A. Goldstein, PLLC v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 851 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (pre-enforcement challenges require identification of desired conduct that would trigger enforcement)
Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standard for considering factual allegations on Rule 12(b)(1))
Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (court may examine facts beyond the complaint to assure jurisdiction)