Teachers Union Moves to Block TEA Policy on Educators' Speech

Texas American Federation of Teachers (Texas AFT) has filed a request for a preliminary injunction in its ongoing federal lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency (TEA), escalating its challenge to what it described as unconstitutional investigations of educators for protected speech.

The motion asks the court to immediately block the enforcement of a policy issued in September 2025 by TEA Commissioner Mike Morath.

The policy requires school districts to report educators to the state for any social media posts deemed "vile" or "reprehensible" in connection with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Texas AFT is also seeking a court order requiring TEA to suspend all related investigations currently underway.

As part of the filing, Texas AFT President Zeph Capo submitted a written declaration detailing the consequences faced by educators targeted under the policy. According to Capo, union members have been reprimanded and, in some cases, terminated for speech that occured outside the classroom and was unrelated to their professional duties.

"Educators don't forfeit their right to engage in free speech simply by virtue of their employment as public school employees," Capo wrote. "Now the state is using these investigations to go after educators' certifications, with at least one Texas AFT member being inappropriately placed on the state's Do Not Hire List."

The injunction request builds on a broader lawsuit filed by Texas AFT and the national American Federation of Teachers, which argues that TEA's policy violates the First Amendment and is impermissibly vague and overbroad. The suit alleges that the agency's actions have created a chilling effect on educators' speech on matters of public concern.

Beyond professional consequences, Texas AFT reports that affected educators have faced harassment on social media, including doxxing and death threats.

The court's decision on the preliminary injunction could determine whether TEA is allowed to continue enforcing the policy while the underlying constitutional challenge moves forward.