Iowa Teachers Investigated for Comments About Charlie Kirk's Death

Federal judge finds state's actions 'deeply troubling' but declines to block disciplinary proceedings

Published on Feb. 26, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Two Iowa teachers, Katherine Mejia and Jennifer Smith, are facing disciplinary proceedings from the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners for their social media posts about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The teachers claim the board's actions violate their First Amendment rights, but a federal judge has denied their request for an injunction to block the investigation, stating that the 'timing, the statewide reach, and the viewpoint-specific framing' of the board's actions are 'deeply troubling' and raise 'serious questions' about whether the state is trying to suppress disfavored commentary on Kirk's death.

Why it matters

This case highlights the tension between educators' free speech rights and a state's authority to police the teaching profession. The teachers argue the board is engaging in 'viewpoint discrimination' by targeting those who criticized Kirk, while the state claims it has a legitimate interest in enforcing professional standards. The judge's ruling suggests the courts may ultimately side with the teachers, but the case underscores the challenges educators face in navigating political controversies.

The details

According to the lawsuit, counselor Katherine Mejia reposted a Facebook post stating that anyone who still supported former President Trump was either a pedophile or 'OK with it happening.' Mejia also posted that Charlie Kirk was 'neither a martyr nor a hero' and was 'a cause' of violence. Teacher Jennifer Smith posted on Facebook that Kirk was a 'monster' and said 'RIP you monster.' After the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners' executive director sent a letter to school superintendents encouraging them to file complaints about educators' comments on Kirk's death, Mejia's and Smith's employers filed ethics complaints against them.

  • On September 10, 2025, Mejia made the posts about Kirk while on district-approved leave.
  • On September 11, 2025, Smith made the posts about Kirk after work hours.
  • On September 19, 2025, the board's executive director sent the letter to superintendents encouraging complaints about educators' comments on Kirk's death.
  • Shortly after the director's letter, Mejia's and Smith's employers filed ethics complaints against them.

The players

Katherine Mejia

A counselor for the West Delaware Community School District near Manchester, Iowa who made social media posts criticizing Charlie Kirk after his death.

Jennifer Smith

A high school family and consumer sciences teacher for the Johnston Community School District in Iowa who made social media posts criticizing Charlie Kirk after his death.

Michael Cavin

The executive director of the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners who sent a letter to school superintendents encouraging them to file complaints about educators' comments on Charlie Kirk's death.

Jen Vance

The superintendent who issued a letter of reprimand to Katherine Mejia for her social media post about Charlie Kirk.

Nikki Roorda

The superintendent who filed a complaint with the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners against Jennifer Smith for her social media post about Charlie Kirk.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“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.”

— Chief Judge Stephanie Rose, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on whether to allow the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners to continue its investigation into Mejia's and Smith's social media posts about Charlie Kirk.

The takeaway

This case highlights the delicate balance between educators' free speech rights and a state's authority to regulate the teaching profession. While the judge found the state's actions 'deeply troubling,' the ultimate outcome will depend on whether the courts determine the board's investigation violates the First Amendment or if the state can justify its actions as a legitimate exercise of professional oversight.