Texas Teachers Fail to Halt Charlie Kirk Social Media Probes (1)

A federal judge declined to block the Texas Education Agency from investigating public school teachers and other employees who shared “inappropriate” social media posts about conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination last year.

Judge Alan Albright of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, in an oral ruling from the bench Wednesday, denied the Texas American Federation of Teachers’ request for a preliminary injunction. The order came minutes after a lively debate with the parties’ attorneys over the constitutionality of agency Commissioner Mike Morath’s letter to school district administrators.

The ruling comes as courts nationwide determine the fate of cases brought by private- and public-sector workers who say they were unlawfully fired or disciplined over online comments deemed critical of the Turning Point USA founder or implying approval of his Sept. 10 killing.

During the virtual hearing, Albright indicated that he’s “not buying” the argument by Texas AFT, one of the state’s largest teachers’ unions, that Morath’s letter violates the First Amendment rights of pubic school employees because it’s vague, overbroad, or infringes on protected political speech.

The policy letter affected over 350 teachers and employees who faced alleged retaliatory measures like investigations, disciplinary actions, and terminations for their protected political speech about social and political issues, according to Texas AFT’s motion. The commissioner’s counsel argued that the letter doesn’t constitute a policy.

Albright said he’s “not going to enjoin” the public school system, which oversees primary and secondary education in Texas, to retract the policy and end all probes, as there’s no sufficient evidence of harm at this stage.

“I don’t see how it can be chilling on speech” if the pending administrative inquiries into teachers’ online posts, which haven’t yet developed into formal investigations, didn’t create a punitive effect, the judge said.

Karima Maloney, a partner at Steptoe LLP who argued for the Texas AFT, maintained that the investigatory process is “extremely chilling on teachers.”

At least one educator was fired and placed on a “Do Not Hire” public registry for three months, preventing them from finding work, Maloney said. Another teacher was unable to renew her certification while under investigation and is bracing for the possibility of losing her job next month, the attorney said.

“I get that’s your position” that the investigative process constitutes a form of punishment, Albright interjected, “but I’m not buying it.”

‘Injury’ Debated

Albright asked the parties’ counsel to explain whether the plaintiffs demonstrated legal standing. This doctrine requires challengers to show that the allegedly discriminatory policy or conduct at issue caused or would likely inflict a recognizable harm that only judicial relief can redress.

Teachers said under oath in court papers that they no longer post political opinions online out of fear of state monitoring and retaliation, Maloney said. They’ve also been referred for investigations, which creates a public flag and could harm professional credentials that may jeopardize future job prospects, she added.

“This letter is the thing that triggered all of this,” Maloney said.

Keith Ingram of the Texas attorney general’s office, which represents Morath, argued that the adverse job actions mentioned in the lawsuit were caused solely by school districts that employed those teachers. The agency had no role in those actions, he said.

“Simply being investigated doesn’t even result in the flag on the certificate,” which only comes when there’s a formal probe, Ingram said. At that point, the teacher has full due process and legal rights to file a challenge, he said.

Morath’s letter has been criticized as being an unconstitutional, viewpoint-based speech restriction targeting expressions he allegedly finds “reprehensible,” “vile,” or “inappropriate.” The education agency is accused of pressuring school districts to report and discipline teachers and of issuing a vague policy that discourages protected speech by not clarifying what’s prohibited.

Ingram maintained that the letter doesn’t constitute a policy and that there’s no alleged injury traceable to the commissioner. Morath only asked for referrals for investigations into social media conduct that administrators believe violates ethics rules for public school teachers in the state, the state attorney said.

After his ruling, Albright said he will soon decide on the commissioner’s pending motion to dismiss the case.

The case is Tex. Am. Fed’n of Teachers v. Morath, W.D. Tex., No. 1:26-cv-00024, hearing held 4/22/26.