Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Court dismisses suit brought against Texas ed agency alleging baseless investigations after Kirk assassination, (Aug 26, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

Lack of standing, rather than the underlying constitutional questions, led the court to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice.

A federal district court in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) against the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and its commissioner, Mike Morath. The AFT, which represents a variety of educators, healthcare professionals, public employees, and others, announced earlier this year that it had filed the lawsuit in response to a TEA letter that called for reports of educators who posted what the agency described as “vile content” following the September 2025 killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The union alleged that members have been placed on administrative leave, reprimanded, and terminated for social media posts. The court held that the union lacked Article III standing because the alleged harms suffered by teachers were not traceable to the letter itself.

In an August 21 opinion, U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas granted Education Commissioner Mike Morath’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court also vacated its prior oral ruling on TAFT’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Letter from Ed Commissioner. The dispute stemmed from a September 12, 2025, letter Morath sent to Texas school superintendents after educators made online comments concerning Kirk’s death or, as he described it, “reprehensible and inappropriate content on social media related to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.” The letter stated that Morath would refer documentation concerning educators who “proliferated such vile content” to TEA’s Educator Investigations Division and urged districts to report additional incidents through the agency’s misconduct reporting portal.

TAFT, which represents teachers and other public school employees, argued the letter chilled members’ speech and led to disciplinary consequences, including investigations, certificate flags, placement on “do not hire” lists, and adverse employment actions.

No new policy. Judge Albright concluded that the union failed to establish the causation element of standing. According to the court, the Morath letter did not create a new policy, expand existing rules, or impose new obligations on school districts. Instead, it merely referenced and directed enforcement under existing provisions of the Texas Educators’ Code of Ethics and existing investigative procedures. Any injuries allegedly suffered by teachers therefore stemmed from preexisting policies and enforcement mechanisms rather than from the letter itself, the court said.

The court also rejected TAFT’s contention that the letter effectively mandated districts to target teachers because of their speech. The court found no language creating new requirements or threats of discipline, noting that any existing reporting obligations arose independently from state policies and regulations already in place.

Causation problem. The court also held that investigations alone do not constitute a legally sufficient injury for standing purposes, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent emphasizing that injuries must be fairly traceable to the challenged government action. Even if the court ordered Morath to withdraw the letter or rescind referrals, the teachers would remain subject to the same ethics code and investigative framework, Judge Albright wrote. As a result, the alleged harms would persist regardless of the letter’s existence.

TAFT additionally argued that Morath used governmental influence to encourage school districts to penalize educators for protected speech. While acknowledging that government pressure can, in some circumstances, support a First Amendment claim, the court said that issue was separate from the standing question before it. The relevant inquiry, the judge wrote, was whether the alleged injuries were traceable to Morath’s letter, and the court concluded they were not.

Not a “comment on” underlying proceedings. The dismissal leaves unresolved the underlying constitutional questions surrounding potential disciplinary actions against educators for their online speech. Judge Albright emphasized that the ruling should not be construed as commentary on the legality or constitutionality of any future proceedings before Texas administrative bodies, which were not before the court.

The case is No. 1:26-cv-00024.

News: LitigationNewsTrends PublicEmployees IndividualRights Discharge LaborNews Labor UnionsMembers