On Tuesday, the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sued the state education agency and its head, Commissioner Mike Morath. The suit was over a 12 September letter Morath sent to the state’s school superintendents, which instructed them to report “reprehensible”, “inappropriate”, and “vile” content shared by educators related to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

The letter represents an unconstitutional attempt to use professional licensing to punish protected speech. Teachers are licensed by the state, which requires them to meet certain standards of professionalism and competence, but those standards cannot override the First Amendment.

It’s true that a school district, as an employer, can discipline teachers for off-the-clock speech in narrow circumstances. However, it must show that the speech genuinely disrupted the school’s operation to an extent that outweighs the employee’s right to speak about matters of public concern. This speech clearly qualifies as a matter of public concern and does not appear to affect the school’s operation.

As the Texas AFT’s lawsuit explains, Morath’s letter targets employee speech regardless of whether that speech was disruptive within the school environment. Unsubstantiated claims of disruption are insufficient. A government official’s opinion that off-duty speech is “inappropriate” or “reprehensible” does not equate to disruption.

Morath’s actions are just one example of high-level officials abusing their authority to punish Americans for comments about Charlie Kirk. There was a wave of cancellations and violations of citizens’ First Amendment rights following Kirk’s assassination, encouraged by government officials all the way up to President Trump himself. Vice President JD Vance, while guest-hosting an episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, told his audience, “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out, and hell, call their employer.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi also weighed in. On 15 September, Bondi told The Katie Miller Podcast that the Department of Justice would “target” and “go after” people for using “hate speech”. These threats are legally absurd — “hate speech” is not an exception to the First Amendment, which forbids the government from punishing speech simply because it is offensive. The next day, Bondi walked back some of those comments, saying that “hate speech” itself would not be prosecuted. However, on Fox News that same day, she implied that private employers have a legal responsibility to fire people who say “horrible” things.

This pattern of overreach is not confined to Texas and DC. Higher-level state officials around the country are leveraging their power to promote their own view of acceptable speech. For instance, the Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives and other legislators urged Clemson University to take “immediate and appropriate action” regarding “vile and troubling comments” about Charlie Kirk from faculty. They succeeded in getting three people fired, one of whom won a settlement against Clemson on 3 January.

When government employers fail to follow the constitutionally required legal standard, it’s bad enough. But when higher-level authorities — in this case, the Texas education commissioner — ignore that standard, it’s even worse. Unlike school districts that actually employ educators, a state education agency can revoke teachers’ licenses altogether, effectively banishing them from the profession statewide.

Ultimately, that’s a serious threat to everyone’s rights, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. Even if one finds some of the comments made about Kirk reprehensible, these constitutional protections are there to protect everyone. The political winds constantly shift, and often quite drastically. When they do, these same principles and protections will be the ones that protect the other side when its “reprehensible”, “inappropriate”, and “vile” speech is being targeted.