Judge calls state response to comments about Charlie Kirk ‘deeply troubling’

While stating she finds the state’s actions to be “deeply troubling,” a federal judge has refused to issue an injunction that would block disciplinary proceedings against two Iowa teachers for their social-media posts about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

The teachers claim the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners has violated their First Amendment rights by investigating them for their online comments about Kirk. Earlier this week, however, a federal judge denied their request for an injunction that would have blocked the board from pursuing its investigation due to a legal doctrine that bars federal courts from interfering with ongoing state enforcement proceedings.

The decision involves teachers Katherine Mejia of Manchester and Jennifer Smith of Johnston. They sued the state board for openly soliciting complaints about teachers who made negative public comments about Kirk in the immediate aftermath of his slaying last fall.

Mejia is a counselor for the West Delaware Community School District near Manchester, and Smith is a high school family and consumer sciences teacher for the Johnston Community School District.

The solicitation of complaints by the board’s executive director, Michael Cavin, resulted in complaints of unethical conduct filed against Mejia and Smith by their employers. The lawsuit alleges the actions of Cavin and the board violated the teachers’ First Amendment right to comment on matters of public concern.

Several other lawsuits have been filed by Iowa educators, a public defender and a paramedic, all of whom allege they were fired or sanctioned for online comments posted in the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s death. Those lawsuits have focused on the actions of the employers, while Mejia’s and Smith’s lawsuit targets the state licensing board and Cavin.

Mejia posts that Kirk is not a hero

According to the lawsuit, on Sept. 10, 2025, while Mejia was on district-approved leave, she used her personal device to repost another individual’s Facebook post concerning human trafficker and child-sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and President Donald Trump. The post indicated that anyone who still supported Trump was either a pedophile or was “OK with it happening.”

The lawsuit indicates Mejia also “made another post” concerning Kirk that stated, “Let’s make one thing clear from the start: Charlie Kirk was the victim of a shooting in a country where he, along with other right-wing extremist influencers, have been inciting violence for years. KIRK IS NEITHER A MARTYR NOR A HERO. HE IS A CAUSE!”

According to the lawsuit, one person complained about the Kirk-related post. Superintendent Jen Vance issued a letter of reprimand to Mejia, claiming she had made the post during work hours and asserting that Mejia should “exercise professional discretion when engaging in any online activity.”

On Sept. 19, 2025, three days after Vance resolved the matter with a reprimand, the lawsuit claims, Vance and other superintendents around Iowa received a letter from Cavin, on board letterhead, referencing educators’ “comments regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk” and stating that “administrators are encouraged to file a complaint with the board.” Cavin’s letter then went on to specify the precise regulatory violations to be cited in such a complaint.

Because of Cavin’s letter, the lawsuit claims, Vance submitted a complaint to the board concerning Mejia’s online posts.

Smith posts ‘RIP you monster.’

With regard to Smith, the lawsuit alleges that on Sept. 11, 2025, Smith was at home, after work, when she posted a message to Facebook using her personal device. The post was about comments that Kirk had made prior to his death, and stated: “Words below are from the one that suddenly died due to gun violence.” Attached to Smith’s post was an image with the words: “MLK was awful. He’s not a good person,” and “I think it’s worth … some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.’”

According to the lawsuit, Smith also wrote on Facebook: “RIP you monster. I’m so sure your god is fine with the awful spread of hate you completed while here on earth.”

The following day, the lawsuit alleges, a human resources employee called Smith at home to report that a school board member had been called about the post, adding that Smith should take down the post if she did not want her next workday interrupted. Smith then deleted the post, the lawsuit claims.

No further action was taken in the matter, the lawsuit alleges, until after Cavin’s letter was sent out, after which Superintendent Nikki Roorda filed a complaint with the board.

“Mejia’s and Smith’s Facebook comments are classic, protected, personal and political speech,” the lawsuit asserts. It claims Cavin’s letter represents “viewpoint discrimination” against those who don’t share Kirk’s political views and that it “threatened public school administrators, who are also licensed by the BOEE, for failure to engage in viewpoint discrimination against other licensed educators who had views adverse to Charlie Kirk.”

The lawsuit sought a temporary restraining order preventing the board and Cavin from taking any further action in their cases, as well as an injunction restraining Cavin and the board from discriminating against, or retaliating against, Mejia and Smith.

Judge: State’s actions are ‘deeply troubling’

In denying the teachers’ request for an injunction, Chief Judge Stephanie Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa pointed out that prior court rulings have held that licensing-board actions are similar to criminal proceedings because they use the state’s coercive power to enforce professional standards under the threat of license revocation.

Rose said that while the courts might ultimately conclude Mejia’s and Smith’s comments are constitutionally protected, that fact doesn’t diminish the state’s interest in policing the teaching profession without federal interference. Any decisions made by the board, she said, remain subject to judicial review in Iowa’s state court system, where federal constitutional claims may be raised.

“The court does not, however, close its eyes to the context in which these proceedings arose,” Rose added. “Cavin’s Sept. 19 letter was not a routine communication. It was sent to most, if not all, public school superintendents in Iowa, expressly in response to social media posts about Charlie Kirk’s death, and it identified the specific ethical rule under which complaints should be filed.”

Noting that Gov. Kim Reynolds and legislative leaders had called for action against teachers who commented negatively about Kirk, Rose added: “Senior state officials publicly demanded termination of any educator who had criticized Kirk. The timing, the statewide reach, and the viewpoint-specific framing of the letter present a picture that is, at minimum, deeply troubling. A licensing authority’s enforcement apparatus should not be mobilized in response to political pressure to suppress disfavored commentary on a public figure’s death — and this record raises serious questions about whether that is precisely what occurred here.”

Rose emphasized that her decision does not “decide whether the BOEE’s investigation violates the First Amendment — a question the record suggests is serious. It decides only where that question must first be answered.” She said Mejia and Smith can raise their constitutional issues during any future board proceedings and then take the matter up with the state courts if they take issue with the board’s decision.

“Should those proceedings prove inadequate, or should extraordinary circumstances arise, the court’s door remains open,” Rose stated.

This article first appeared in the Iowa Capital Dispatch.