Texas Is Targeting Teachers for Social Media Posts. The First Amendment Lawsuit That Could Set New Limits.

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

More than 350 Texas educators face investigation by state officials for social media posts they made about Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Some have been fired. Others face suspension, formal reprimands, or death threats after their personal information was published online. The state’s largest teachers’ union filed a federal lawsuit this week arguing that officials violated the First Amendment by launching a systematic campaign of retaliation against teachers for expressing political opinions on their own time.

The Texas American Federation of Teachers filed the lawsuit January 6 in U.S. District Court in Austin, naming Education Commissioner Mike Morath and the Texas Education Agency as defendants. The directive didn’t define those terms. It didn’t require any showing that the posts disrupted school operations. It told districts to start filing complaints.

What followed was predictable: a flood of reports, most anonymous, submitted through a state hotline. Local school boards, uncertain about what the vague policy required and facing pressure from officials, began firing and suspending teachers. Some educators deleted their social media accounts entirely. Others stopped posting anything remotely political, afraid that a comment on current events might cost them their career.

The State’s Directive

Some educators posted commentary about Kirk’s death. The posts varied widely. Some criticized Kirk’s political positions. Some expressed what could be called schadenfreude. Others asked questions about the circumstances of his assassination or commented on what they saw as irony in how he died.

The directive didn’t define what counted as “vile.” It didn’t explain what distinguished protected political commentary from punishable speech. It didn’t require any evidence that posts had disrupted school operations or affected a teacher’s ability to do their job—the standard that decades of First Amendment case law demands before government employers can discipline speech.

The result was chaos. While the Texas Education Agency insists no state-level sanctions have been imposed yet, local school districts, responding to Morath’s directive and the resulting complaint avalanche, fired teachers, suspended them, placed them on administrative leave, and issued formal reprimands that will follow them for the rest of their careers.

Four Educators Under Investigation

The lawsuit describes four specific educators—identified anonymously because some have received death threats—who faced severe consequences for posts the union argues were constitutionally protected political speech made on personal accounts during non-working hours.

Two other teachers remain under investigation for posts that criticized Kirk’s public statements about Black Americans, immigrants, women, and LGBTQ individuals—political commentary that would normally fall within First Amendment protections when directed at a public figure.

Some teachers were doxed, their personal information and home addresses published online, leading to death threats against them and their families.

Teachers who lose their jobs this way risk losing their teaching licenses permanently.

The Constitutional Argument

The union’s legal theory is straightforward: officials violated educators’ First Amendment rights by retaliating against them for expressing opinions as private citizens on matters of public concern.

The union argues that none of the disciplined teachers faced consequences because their posts disrupted school operations. They were investigated solely because officials disapproved of their political viewpoints.

The lawsuit characterizes Morath’s directive as so unclear that teachers can’t know what’s forbidden, and so broad it catches innocent speech. Teachers were left guessing about what commentary might cost them their jobs, leading to “arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement across districts.”

The union highlights what it calls hypocrisy in Morath’s enforcement priorities. In 2019, he defended a conservative teacher’s free speech rights and reinstated her after she was fired for a Twitter post requesting the removal of “illegal students” from her district. That reinstatement came explicitly on First Amendment grounds. Yet Morath has refused to extend similar protections to educators critical of conservative figures like Kirk.

Texas’s Defense

Texas Education Agency officials have declined to comment on the lawsuit specifically, citing pending litigation. But officials have previously articulated their rationale: they’re targeting speech that crosses the line into celebrating or inciting violence, not mere political disagreement.

“While all educators are held to a high standard of professionalism,” Morath said in a September statement, “there is a difference between comments made in poor taste and those that call for and incite further violence—the latter of which is clearly unacceptable.”

At a November event at the University of Texas, Morath elaborated: “Some of those complaints are clearly people that are personally settling scores with others they don’t like, and those cases will get closed. The ones that we’re going after, from an enforcement perspective, are violations of the educator code of ethics.”

The state’s likely legal defense will argue that investigations serve legitimate governmental interests in maintaining professional standards for educators who serve as role models for children. Teachers who appeared to celebrate political violence—even in off-duty social media posts—undermine the educational mission and public trust in schools, creating a disruption that justifies disciplinary action.

Attorneys may argue that the volume of complaints—more than 350—demonstrates genuine community concern and workplace disruption, not viewpoint-based retaliation.

But the union has attempted to preempt this argument by emphasizing that teachers faced discipline “solely for their speech, without any regard to whether the posts disrupted school operations in any way.” Districts conducted no individualized assessment of disruption before taking action. They responded to political pressure generated by Morath’s letter and the resulting complaint campaign.

Implications for Public Employees Nationwide

The outcome could affect millions of Americans who work for government. Police officers, firefighters, social workers, parks department employees—all public servants who engage in political speech on social media. The precedent this case sets could define the boundaries of their employers’ authority to discipline that speech.

The core question: does the Pickering balancing test—developed in an era of letters to newspaper editors—adequately address social media realities? Public employees’ personal accounts can reach thousands instantly. Posts can be screenshot and shared out of context. Viral backlash can generate workplace disruption even for off-duty, non-work-related commentary.

Government employers might argue that social media posts by identifiable employees effectively represent the agency to the public in ways traditional private speech didn’t. A teacher’s Facebook post critical of a political figure might be seen by students’ parents, potentially undermining effectiveness regardless of whether the speech occurs during work hours.

But if angry social media reactions count as workplace disruption, employers could punish any unpopular speech. This lets angry people effectively silence others by threatening consequences—giving hostile audiences control over public employees’ First Amendment rights. If a teacher can be fired because parents are angry about political views expressed on personal social media, the practical effect is that public employees must either refrain from controversial political speech or risk their livelihoods.

As National AFT President Randi Weingarten put it: “Even if we think some of this speech is noxious, defending one’s right to speak is the essence of our democracy.” The argument isn’t that teachers should celebrate violence or that such commentary reflects well on the profession. It’s that government employers can’t punish constitutionally protected speech simply because officials or community members disapprove of the views expressed.

Similar Cases in Other States

Texas wasn’t alone in disciplining educators who commented on Kirk’s assassination, though Texas and Florida distinguished themselves by actively encouraging systematic reporting and investigation of teachers’ social media activity.

At Austin Peay State University in Tennessee, theater professor Darren Michael was fired on September 12—the same day Morath issued his directive—after sharing a Facebook post linking to an article titled “Charlie Kirk says gun deaths are ‘unfortunately’ worth it to keep 2nd Amendment.” He added no personal commentary.

The post went viral after Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn shared a screenshot on social media, tagging the university and asking “What do you say, @austinpeay?”

University president Mike Licari initially defended the firing, stating Michael’s social media activity was “insensitive, disrespectful and interpreted by many as propagating justification for unlawful death.” But university administrators later acknowledged they’d failed to follow required procedures for terminating tenured faculty.

In late December, Austin Peay reached a settlement with Michael that included his reinstatement and a $500,000 payment, along with reimbursement for therapeutic counseling. The settlement required the university to issue a public statement “acknowledging regret for not following proper tenure termination procedures.”

Broader Context: Conservative Education Policies in Texas

The lawsuit arrives amid a broader rightward push in education policy. Over the past several years, lawmakers and education officials have enacted sweeping changes to curriculum, campus governance, and classroom speech restrictions.

In 2024, lawmakers passed legislation overhauling how state colleges and universities operate, transferring faculty control over curriculum and academic programs to political appointees and restricting campus protests. The Legislature also required public schools to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms and created financial incentives for schools to adopt a Bible-based curriculum—which approximately one in four districts now use.

Governor Greg Abbott’s December 2025 announcement of a partnership with Turning Point USA to establish Club America chapters in every public high school exemplifies the broader effort to infuse conservative political activism into public education. “Let me be clear,” Abbott declared while standing with Morath outside the governor’s mansion: “Any school that stands in the way of a Club America program in their school should be reported immediately to the Texas Education Agency.”

He warned of “meaningful disciplinary action” against “any stoppage of TPUSA in the great state of Texas.”

More than one in ten American students attend K-12 schools in Texas. Education policies here have national significance.

Commissioner Morath has played a central role in implementing conservative education priorities. Most notoriously, in 2023 he dissolved the elected school board of the Houston Independent School District and replaced it with his own appointees. Union officials note that Houston schools had improved significantly, rising from a “D” to a “B-” grade by the state’s own metrics, but the district served predominantly students of color and had a school board that was majority female and composed of people of color. Morath’s appointed board subsequently closed several schools mid-year, displacing thousands of students and firing dozens of teachers.

Leaders attempted repeatedly to meet with Morath to discuss the Kirk post investigations and seek clarification of the policy. The commissioner never responded to their requests.

Texas is one of several Republican-controlled states that have restricted educators’ ability to discuss certain topics related to race, gender, and American history in classrooms. The state also prohibits collective bargaining for public sector workers, meaning teachers’ unions can only “meet and confer” with officials on overall working conditions rather than negotiate binding contracts. This limited bargaining power made litigation the only viable option for challenging Morath’s directive after he refused to engage.

Legal Process and Timeline

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which covers Austin, where TEA headquarters are located. Attorneys are seeking a court ruling that the policy is unconstitutional, plus orders blocking ongoing investigations, requiring retraction of Morath’s September letter, and reversing disciplinary actions taken under the policy.

The union hasn’t requested monetary damages, focusing instead on constitutional remedies that would protect teachers’ speech rights going forward.

Texas AFT may file a motion for an emergency court order seeking to halt investigations while the case proceeds. This would require demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, that plaintiffs face irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of hardships favors an injunction, and that an injunction serves the public interest.

The state will likely file a motion to dismiss, arguing either that the court lacks jurisdiction, that plaintiffs lack standing to sue, or that the complaint fails to state a claim. Attorneys could argue the legal shield that normally protects states from being sued bars suits against officials, though plaintiffs can overcome this defense by suing to make officials stop the unconstitutional actions.

If the district court denies any motion to dismiss, the case would proceed to discovery. The union would likely seek internal TEA communications about the Kirk post policy, records of individual investigations, and evidence of how the agency has handled other cases of educator speech.

The case could be resolved when a judge can decide the case without a trial if everyone agrees on the facts, or proceed to trial if factual disputes remain about issues like whether posts caused workplace disruption. Either way, appeals are likely. The case could potentially reach the federal appeals court that covers Texas and conceivably the Supreme Court if it raises novel First Amendment questions about public employee social media speech.

No trial date has been set.

Current Status and Broader Implications

For now, 95 investigations remain open. Thousands of teachers continue their work uncertain about what political commentary might cost them their jobs.

“We’re not talking about in this case what happened in classrooms,” one union leader emphasized. “We’re talking about school teachers when they were not in classrooms, in private on their own social media, commenting on a matter that everyone in the country and the world saw.”

Whether courts decide this difference matters legally will help define the boundaries of free speech for public employees in the digital age.

Conservative commentators and activists argued that educators who mocked Kirk’s death demonstrated unfitness to teach and should be removed from classrooms. They contended that parents have a legitimate interest in ensuring their children aren’t taught by individuals who celebrate political violence, regardless of technical First Amendment boundaries. Some emphasized that Kirk himself had been a strong advocate for free speech on college campuses, making educators’ reactions particularly hypocritical.

Teachers do serve as role models. Professional standards matter. And celebrating anyone’s murder—even a polarizing political figure—is disturbing behavior that raises questions about judgment and character.

But for a state that prides itself on limited government and individual liberty, this case tests consistency. If a government agency can’t clearly define what’s punishable beyond “reprehensible,” it risks drifting from discipline into viewpoint control.

The vagueness of Morath’s directive—combined with the lack of investigations after Minnesota lawmakers’ assassinations—suggests this wasn’t about maintaining professional standards or preventing incitement to violence. It was about punishing speech that criticized a conservative political figure.

Once you accept that government employers can discipline workers based on subjective disapproval of their political views expressed on personal time, without demonstrating workplace harm, you’ve created a tool that can be wielded by any administration against any viewpoint. Today it’s teachers critical of Charlie Kirk. Tomorrow it could be teachers critical of whoever holds power next.

“Somewhere and somehow, our State’s leaders lost their way,” Texas AFT President Capo said at the lawsuit announcement. “A few well-placed politicians and bureaucrats think it is good for their careers to trample on Educators’ Free Speech Rights.”

The lawsuit has already generated substantial media attention and public debate, potentially causing other states considering similar investigations to reconsider or education officials to establish clearer policies with better procedural protections.

“You don’t lose your constitutional rights when you decide to become a teacher,” Weingarten argued. “The Constitution, for it to have any meaning at all, has to work for all Americans, not just some.”

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.