Texas’ largest teachers union is suing the Texas Education Agency and Education Commissioner Mike Morath in federal court, claiming a new state policy weaponizes educator discipline to punish teachers who posted “vile content” to social media about the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.
In a complaint filed Tuesday, Texas American Federation of Teachers (Texas AFT) highlighted a September 12, 2025 TEA “Policy Letter” that ordered superintendents statewide to report educators who shared “reprehensible and inappropriate content” about Kirk’s shooting to the agency’s Educator Investigations Division.
The letter said TEA was referring “all documentation of educators that have proliferated such vile content” for investigation and told districts to report “additional instances of inappropriate content” through TEA’s Misconduct Reporting Portal.
Texas AFT is arguing the TEA policy violates its members’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by targeting them for speech made as private citizens on personal social media accounts about a high‑profile matter of public concern.
The union contends the policy is an unconstitutional viewpoint‑based restriction, overbroad because it sweeps in protected speech that causes no disruption to school operations, and impermissibly vague because terms like “inappropriate content” give officials unfettered discretion and invite arbitrary enforcement.
According to the complaint, TEA did not issue similar directives after other political assassinations but acted only when educators criticized Kirk, whom it alleges Morath favored politically. The filing notes that Morath previously reversed the firing of a teacher who tweeted at President Donald Trump asking him to “remove illegal students,” portraying the new policy as a double standard against teachers whose views conflict with those of state leaders.
Texas AFT says more than 350 teachers and school employees have been reported to TEA for investigation under the policy, exposing them to potential reprimands, suspension, and revocation of their educator certificates by the State Board for Educator Certification.
The complaint describes members being placed on administrative leave, reprimanded, threatened with termination, terminated, or doxxed online for posts that criticized Kirk, discussed political violence, or compared public mourning for Kirk to reactions to school shootings.
According to allegations in the lawsuit, one Houston‑area high school English teacher was fired after a politician made her Facebook posts about Kirk a campaign issue, with only two school board members voting for termination and five abstaining in protest.
Other teachers in the San Antonio area were hauled into HR meetings, warned under district policies, and referred to TEA despite no disruption to their classrooms—leading some to delete posts and scrub political content from their accounts out of reported fear.
The union argued that tying social media commentary about Kirk to possible violations of the Educators’ Code of Ethics and directing mandatory reporting effectively converts disfavored viewpoints into professional misconduct and pressures superintendents and principals to police teachers’ private speech.
Texas AFT alleged that investigations alone damage educators’ reputations, force them to hire lawyers, and place “permanent black marks” in personnel files, harming their prospects even outside education.
The union said the resulting climate has chilled members’ speech on political and social issues both online and offline, especially when their views “do not seemingly align with the Texas State government.”
The union is asking the court for a permanent injunction blocking TEA from enforcing the policy in any way, ordering the agency to retract the letter, terminate all investigations related to Kirk‑related posts triggered by the policy, and issue a new communication telling districts that such reports are not required.
Texas AFT also seeks a declaratory judgment that the policy is unconstitutional, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, and says it will separately move for a preliminary injunction to halt the policy while the case proceeds.
