Freedom of Speech Gets Its First Court Case After Charlie Kirk

Sep 22, 2025 08:25 PM EDT, Mon

“Although this is clearly an opinion on a controversial subject, it is fully protected by the First Amendment,” Suzanne Swierc’s ACLU lawyers wrote.

Sept. 22, 2025, 5:09 PM EDT By Jordan Rubin

Litigation following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk is starting up in court — not only against his alleged killer but also for people who’ve been fired for their speech.

One of the latest examples comes from Suzanne Swierc, a practicing Catholic who was fired from Indiana’s Ball State University after she made a private Facebook post in which she wrote that “if you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can’t be friends.” She called Kirk’s death a “tragedy” and said she’s praying “for his soul,” while calling his death “a reflection of the violence, fear, and hatred he sowed.”

Kirk’s supporters and some of his detractors alike have eulogized him as a free speech advocate. Now, the legal limits of speech about Kirk will be tested in court.

“Although this is clearly an opinion on a controversial subject, it is fully protected by the First Amendment,” Swierc’s lawyers with the ACLU of Indiana wrote of her social media post, which is pasted on page four of her civil complaint, filed Monday. “Her firing was unconstitutional, and she is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and her damages,” they wrote.

The suit was filed against the president of the university, Geoffrey Mearns, who will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint before a judge weighs in.

In a statement, Ball State cited a federal appeals court’s decision in another school case last month to justify Swierc’s firing. That case involved a high school teacher who, as the appeals court summarized, “posted a series of vulgar, intemperate, and racially insensitive messages to a large audience of recent” high school alumni, and the appeals court noted that it was the teacher’s “third strike and not an isolated incident.”

Swierc’s lawyers will likely attempt to distinguish that precedent in her favor. While it’s early in the litigation, the known facts of her case suggest that they should be able to do so on multiple fronts.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MSNBC, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Related Posts