116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
Iowa House advances Charlie Kirk bill targeting educators’ speech on political violence
Opponents counter that it punishes constitutionally protected speech and could chill educators’ participation in public debate
Feb. 12, 2026 10:03 am
The Gazette offers audio versions of articles using Instaread. Some words may be mispronounced.
DES MOINES — Iowa educators could lose or be denied teaching licenses and certificates for “publicly celebrating” politically motivated violence — including the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk — under legislation advanced Wednesday by House Republican lawmakers.
House Study Bill 682 directs the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners to disqualify an applicant or revoke the credentials of an educator who is found to have “publicly celebrat[ed] any act of politically motivated violence, ”including the unlawful killing of Charles J. Kirk.” The bill defines “celebrate” as any public expression of approval or joy regarding such violence, including social media posts, public statements or other messages accessible to students or the public.
The measure specifically lists phrases such as “good riddance,” “one less fascist,” and “he deserved it,” while stating that any “substantially similar” statements could also trigger disciplinary action. Under the bill, the board would be required to begin proceedings upon receipt of “credible evidence,” including screenshots, videos or a sworn complaint. The legislation would apply retroactively to Sept. 10, 2025 — the day Kirk was fatally shot during an event at Utah Valley University.
The proposal comes after several Iowa educators — along with a public defender and a paramedic — were fired or sanctioned over online posts related to Kirk’s death. Two teachers, Katherine Mejia of Manchester and Jennifer Smith of Johnston, have sued the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners and its executive director, Michael Cavin, alleging that a written solicitation of professional licensing complaints related to Kirk’s death, the Iowa Capital Dispatch reported. The lawsuit argues by soliciting these complaints, Cavin and the board violated teachers’ First Amendment right to make comments about matters of public concern.
Supporters have argued the legislation is intended to address rhetoric that could undermine public trust in schools or appear to endorse violence. Opponents counter that it punishes constitutionally protected speech and could chill educators’ participation in public debate.
Education advocates: Bill punishes constitutionally protected speech
The bill first advanced through a House subcommittee Wednesday afternoon over the objections of education advocates, who said the measure would violate educators’ constitutional protections by punishing speech made outside the workplace.
Melissa Peterson with the Iowa State Education Association called the bill “a blatant constitutional violation.” Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in Rankin v. McPherson, Peterson said public employees cannot be penalized for private political comments unrelated to their official duties, calling that principle “settled law.” She also warned against implementing measures disqualifying people from educator licenses over issues that are not “blatantly illegal.”
“We already have requirements — for example, background checks with the Board of Educational Examiners,” Peterson said. “If you have certain legal infractions in your history, you're not eligible to be an education professional. But to disqualify something or someone, rather, based off of a social media post or something that may have been overheard, we think is just a step too far.”
School advocacy and administrator groups also urged lawmakers to reject the proposal, arguing existing standards already give districts tools to address disruptive or unethical conduct without infringing on free speech. Margaret Buckton, representing the Urban Education Network of Iowa and Rural School Advocates of Iowa, contended Iowa’s current framework — which focuses on violations or disruptions to the educational environment — already strikes a balance between individual safety with constitutional protections.
Republican Reps. Chad Behn of Boone and Henry Stone of Forest City approved moving the bill forward but did not make comments on the measure at the subcommittee meeting. Rep. Elinor Levin of Iowa City, the lone Democrat on the subcommittee, opposed the measure, sharing many of the concerns raised by education advocates.
She warned lawmakers that efforts to address violent rhetoric must be applied carefully and consistently to avoid infringing on protected speech. While agreeing that political violence is a serious issue, Levin argued that emotional reactions to public events can fall within First Amendment protections. She also questioned the decision to single out Kirk in statute, saying that approach undercuts a neutral, consistent framework. She added the bill risks creating a double standard in which educators — by virtue of their public service — are denied the same free speech rights afforded to others.
‘We cannot be the thought police’
Hours later, the House Education Committee amended and approved the bill on a 14-9 vote, largely along party lines, making it eligible for full House debate. Republican Reps. Chad Ingels of Randalia and Thomas Moore of Griswold joined Democrats in voting no.
The amendment expanded the bill to require the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners to adopt rules mandating license revocation for a teacher or administrator found to have encouraged or led a student protest. The amendment defines a protest as a coordinated event involving three or more students who leave class during the school day to draw attention to a school policy or broader political or social issue. It also directs school boards to treat student participation as an unexcused absence and to add an extra day to the academic calendar for each day a protest occurs at any attendance center in the district.
Levin sharply criticized the change. She questioned whether districts would receive funding to compensate teachers, support staff and bus drivers if school calendars must be extended for protest-related walkouts, and warned the language could expose educators to license revocation simply for advising students on how to organize demonstrations safely and legally. Levin argued the amendment compounds existing First Amendment issues in the bill and risked forcing schools to extend the academic year without adequate resources.
“This is so poorly thought out as to be laughable,” she said.
During committee debate, Levin reiterated her constitutional concerns.
“While we all live in a time when political violence is real and is a serious concern, we cannot be the thought police here in the Iowa Legislature,” she said. “There is already ethics violations routes to be taken if someone needs to be going through the Board of Educational Examiners. There is already a good standard … that sets a good balance between balancing safety of all individuals with freedom.”
The bill now awaits consideration by the full Iowa House.
Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com
Daily Newsletters