Amicus Brief: Warner v. Hillsborough County School Board

When the Hillsborough County (FL) school board assigned J.W., a black student, to a distant primarily black school, rather than a more-convenient white-majority one, his father, Blake Warner, filed a pro se (representing himself) lawsuit. The district court denied Warner the right to represent J.W. without hiring a lawyer, dismissing his claims. On appeal, Warner—now represented by pro bono (unpaid) counsel—argued that requiring him to hire a lawyer to bring his child’s claims in federal court violates his and his child’s rights. An Eleventh Circuit panel held that “a parent cannot represent a child pro se,” finding itself bound by circuit precedent, but acknowledged Warner’s “appealing policy argument” that the court has effectively “created a ‘counsel mandate.’” All Americans have the right to represent themselves in federal court, but this decision and others have excluded minors. A child’s claim will be dismissed if her parent or guardian can’t afford to hire counsel. Although originally intended to protect children’s legal rights, this counsel mandate bars many children from court altogether. The full Eleventh Circuit denied en banc review, so First Liberty (now representing the Warners) filed a petition to the Supreme Court. Former Arizona Justice Andrew Gould’s team at Holtzman Vogel prepared a brief for MI that builds on our longstanding advocacy for the well-functioning of courts and, especially, our leadership in advocating for parental rights.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.

Tim Rosenberger is a legal fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Photo: Yanette Hirawan / iStock / Getty Images Plus