A political statement masquerading as a legal opinion must be called out

Please believe me, I have tried to limit my criticism of Attorney General Raul Labrador. But, as a former Idaho AG for 8 years, I know the importance of providing sound legal advice to state entities. When the Idaho AG issues an obvious political opinion in response to a state official’s request for legal guidance, he must be called out for giving harmful advice. Labrador recently advised the State Superintendent of Public Instruction that a classroom sign reading “Everyone is Welcome Here” was prohibited by law. The legally-correct answer, based on the law in question–Idaho Code section 33-143–was that the sign fully complies with the law.

Labrador made two major errors in reaching his conclusion. First and foremost, the law specifies that its purpose is “to maintain a neutral and inclusive environment for all students.” What could possibly be more neutral and inclusive than a sign saying that everyone in the classroom is welcome to be there?

The AG’s second legal error was improperly reading an intent into the words used on the classroom sign. Were the words of the sign to be reviewed by a court, it would give them their plain, usual and ordinary meaning. The literal words used on a document are the best guide to their intent. Labrador only reached his erroneous conclusion by reading a nefarious intent into the four simple words on the sign.

The very worst part of Labrador’s politically-charged opinion was the completely fabricated history he invented for the sign’s intent. He claimed it was “part of an ideological/social movement which started in the Twin Cities, Minnesota following the 2016 election of Donald Trump.” His clear implication was that a Twin Cities sign reading “All Are Welcome Here” was intended to convey an anti-Trump message. Quite to the contrary. The intent and purpose of the sign was to convey an anti-hate message. It was a repudiation of “racist graffiti” that appeared on the walls of a school the day after Trump was elected.

Labrador claimed that Sarah Inama, the teacher who placed the welcoming sign in her classroom, “first displayed” it in 2017, which is either an outright fabrication or sloppy research. Inama was not a teacher in 2017 and did not display the sign until 2020 or 2021. She had not heard of the Minnesota story until she saw Labrador’s opinion on June 27. Labrador claimed the “Idaho Democratic Party even sells these signs as part of its fundraising efforts,” while failing to disclose that no such sales occurred until March 25 of this year–after Inama’s story went viral.

Labrador has demonstrated a penchant for providing politically-biased legal advice to some of his state clients. That probably explains why the State Land Board voted on June 27 to stop using Labrador as its lawyer–the first time in Idaho history that the Board decided to hire outside legal representation. State government, just like private businesses, can’t afford to rely on political opinions. The AG is the State’s official lawyer and must give unbiased legal advice to that important client.

The Legislature also deserves mention for its shoddy workmanship. The statute in question is a mishmash, more designed to intimidate schools than to pinpoint prohibited content. The language is vague and all-encompassing. It prohibits content related to a vast array of political, religious and ideological subject matter from being displayed on classroom walls. It equates several words that have somewhat related, but distinct, meanings–views, viewpoints, ideologies and expressions.

By prohibiting political views, viewpoints, ideologies and expressions, the whole range of historic phrases appears to be banned from Idaho classroom walls–All men are created equal; Blue lives matter; Give me liberty or give me death; Make America Great Again; A house divided against itself cannot stand; Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall; The only thing we have to fear is fear itself; Drill, baby, drill; Speak softly and carry a big stick; and so on through the course of America’s political history.

The prohibition of religious expressions, ideologies, viewpoints and views would likely keep the Ten Commandments off of classroom walls, which in my view would be in keeping with the Founding Fathers’ intention for keeping a separation between church and state. But other phrases with religious overtones would also be banned–Love thy neighbor, In God we trust, and the like.

The Legislature has no apparent interest in obtaining competent legal advice before enacting culture war legislation. On the other hand, Labrador has failed to comply with his statutory responsibility to provide official legal opinions to legislators to guide their legislation around legal pitfalls. The people deserve better from their elected officials.

About the Author

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served 8 years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017).