The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a father’s appeal over whether he had the right to videotape meetings with school officials about his son’s special education program.
The highest court in the country refused the appeal from Scott Pitta, a father of a son with special needs, who wanted to videotape a meeting between him and officials from the Bridgewater, Massachusetts, school district about his son’s Individual Education Program (IEP).
An IEP is a document that details what services a student with a disability needs to receive to achieve their educational goals. The petition notes that schools are required to consult with parents about a student’s IEP under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Pitta informed school officials that he would videotape meetings with them about his son’s IEP after realizing that the minutes from previous meetings were “incomplete,” according to for the petition.
The issue arose after school officials said her son no longer needed an IEP, which Pitta disagreed with, according to the petition. In a meeting with officials on September 20, 2022, Pitta requested that the session be recorded “because he did not trust that the Respondents’ own minutes would accurately reflect the relevant statements.”
School officials reportedly refused to allow video recording but offered to audio record the meeting. Pitta considered the offer “unsatisfactory” because it would be difficult to determine who was speaking, according to the petition.
Pitta subsequently filed suit against the employees on September 28, 2022, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights. The lawsuit was dismissed by the district court and later by an appeals court.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the First Amendment does not allow video recording of public officials in all instances.
“Pitta’s argument ignores the limitations set forth in First Circuit law, which permits the recording of government officials performing their duties only in indisputably public places, in public view, and even then only when the act of filming would not impede the employees in carrying out their duties. their public duties and would serve the public interests”, the court decided in January.
Adam Shelton, a Goldwater Institute attorney representing Pitta, said he was “disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s order not to address the case in a statement to The Hill.
“Refusing to allow parents to record a meeting with government officials about their own children in their own home violates the First Amendment,” Shelton said.
“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear this important case, but we will continue to fight in courts and legislatures across the country to protect parental rights, including the right to record a meeting with school officials about your own son,” he added. .
This article was updated at 4:23 p.m.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
