Judge orders temporary reinstatement in USD professor free-speech case tied to Charlie Kirk remarks

A federal judge in South Dakota ordered the University of South Dakota to temporarily reinstate tenured fine arts professor Michael Hook while his First Amendment lawsuit challenges a termination recommendation tied to a personal social media post about Charlie Kirk’s death. Hook wrote on his Facebook page that he didn’t give a "flying f---" about Kirk, calling him a "hate-spreading Nazi." He deleted the post about three hours later, but Hook’s lawsuit alleges the board of regents acted swiftly to fire him after prominent state officials publicly urged his removal. The judge’s order allows Hook to return to teaching while the case proceeds, a procedural step in a broader clash over whether educators may express controversial views on private accounts without jeopardizing their jobs.

In a separate but related case, Matthew Kargol, a longtime art teacher at Oskaloosa High School in Iowa, was fired after posting "1 Nazi down" on his private Facebook page. His lawsuit argues the remark was rhetorical hyperbole about a widely covered political event and that the termination reflected a political viewpoint rather than classroom conduct. The cases illustrate how courts balance free-speech rights with schools’ operational needs, and how the legal framework differs for public universities versus K–12 districts.

The broader debate has drawn input from civil-rights advocates and legal scholars. Jessie Appleby, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said courts typically distinguish between speech tied to an employee’s duties and speech conducted in a private capacity. "Professors and any government employees have a First Amendment protected right to speak as citizens on matters of public concern," Appleby said. "When professors post on social media about something like Charlie Kirk’s assassination, that speech is protected by the First Amendment." She noted that true threats and incitement to violence are not protected, but that rhetorical hyperbole and generalized statements often are.

Not all experts see the cases as straightforward. Brent Skorup, a Cato Institute legal fellow, said the law remains nuanced because it must balance free-speech rights against a school’s need to function. "Celebrating a death may be constitutionally protected, but if it disrupts a school’s operations it can still be a fireable offense," he said. He added that universities generally have more latitude with professors than K–12 teachers, who are expected to model conduct for students. Most disputes, he said, fall somewhere in between.

Danny Karon, who teaches law at the University of Michigan and Ohio State, noted that codes of conduct and at-will employment give institutions broad discretion. "Colleges, universities, and plenty of other entities have codes of conduct by which their faculty members and employees must abide," he said. "If a professor violates these terms, a university is within its rights to fire them. This is even more true where an employee is at-will." He added that private institutions may have even fewer protections for employees.

Seth Berenzweig, a Virginia-based employment and compliance attorney, stressed that public employees can be terminated for very offensive social-media activity if it reasonably disrupts workplace operations. He predicted lawsuits like Hook’s would be difficult, noting that the Supreme Court’s protections for speech in employment cases have evolved over time. Civil rights attorney Laura L. Dunn, however, argued that remarks made in private capacity about a controversial public issue, especially when not directed at students, should be protected and that limits on free expression threaten democracy during a period of heightened political tension.

In Oskaloosa, Iowa, the school district stated that the matter would be handled under federal and state law and board policy, and that it could not comment while litigation continues. Kargol’s attorneys did not respond to requests for comment. The University of South Dakota’s Board of Regents did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Hook’s case. Hook’s attorney, Jim Leach, said the ruling vindicates free-speech rights and that the decision should educate government officials about respecting private-speech protections in matters of public concern.

As cases like Hook’s and Kargol’s move forward, legal observers say the outcomes could influence how universities enforce codes of conduct and navigate the tension between professional expectations and individual expression in the digital age. The evolving landscape highlights ongoing questions about where First Amendment protections end and institutional interests begin when comments appear on personal social media accounts in the context of highly charged national events.