Chris Kluwe, fired as football coach, sues Huntington Beach Union High School District
One person not on the gridiron this year at Edison High is former NFL punter Chris Kluwe.
Kluwe, who had been a freshman football coach for the Chargers for six years, was fired on Feb. 27.
'This is the time they're just getting into camp and learning everything, and I'm not there anymore,' he said.
On Monday, Kluwe sued the Huntington Beach Union High School District, alleging his 1st and 14th Amendment rights were violated when he was terminated earlier this year for what the district claimed was an incendiary social media post.
The complaint, filed in the Southern Division of the U.S. District Court Central District, also lists HBUHSD Supt. Carolee Ogata, Board of Trustees President Susan Henry, Asst. Supt. Daniel Bryan, then-Edison Principal Daniel Morris, Edison Assist. Principal Edward Begany and author Chris Epting, a former Los Angeles Times columnist, as defendants.
The ACLU Foundation of Southern California is listed as co-counsel for Kluwe for his claims of retaliatory discharge, violations of his civil rights and deprivation of property and liberty without due process against HBUHSD.
'Rather than responsibly investigating what unmistakably involved 1st Amendment-protected speech about a hotly-debated political issue in the community, the school district played a politically-motivated game of 'gotcha,'' the complaint reads. 'The school district's sham decision-making process did not even include notifying Kluwe of an issue with his post, disclosing the school district policy he allegedly violated and asking for his side of the story. With any level of investigation, the school district would have discovered that a group of politically-motivated MAGA loyalists had launched a campaign to 'cancel' Kluwe — i.e., to get him fired because his liberal politics and calls for him to run for City Council disgusted them.'
The school district declined to comment because the issue is a confidential personnel matter, HBUSHD spokeswoman Noel Anderson said in an email Monday.
Epting is named in the suit, as Kluwe claimed he posted an cropped social media image that placed him in a false light and implied that he was violent.
'I'm comfortable that my 1st Amendment right allows me to offer my opinion on his posts while sharing exactly what he said publicly,' Epting said Monday.
Kluwe was arrested at the Feb. 18 Huntington Beach City Council meeting after engaging in an act of peaceful civil disobedience. His comments at the meeting served to slam a plaque featuring the MAGA acrostic, which was approved to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Central Library.
Five days later, he made a since-deleted post on social media platform Bluesky encouraging people to stop complaining to the library, and start complaining to the City Council.
'Stop [expletive] with the library,' the post read. 'That's what the City Council is doing. The library is great, as are the people who work there. Go [expletive] with the City Council. Find where they work, and blow *those* places up.'
Kluwe said he met with the Edison athletic director and vice principal of supervision on Feb. 27, and was told he was being let go. The district issued a press release on March 3, referencing the post and stating that it 'does not condone or tolerate language that promotes or suggests violence in any form.'
Kluwe said Monday the social media post, which had been paired with a video and was later deleted, was taken out of context and did not promote actual violence, rather the 'blowing up' of phone lines with complaints.
'I was making the comments as a private citizen, and as far as I'm aware, the 1st Amendment is still intact,' said Kluwe, 43. 'That means, as a private citizen, you can speak out on matters of public import … That's why we have the 1st Amendment, right, to make sure that if someone is let go for their speech, then we have to figure out, was that protected speech or not?'
Kluwe, who has announced that he is planning a state Assembly District 72 run next year, is represented by attorneys from Irvine-based Crowell & Moring LLP as well as Anne Brafford of Huntington Beach. The complaint demands a jury trial.
During his time in professional football, Kluwe threatened to sue the Minnesota Vikings after he alleged they released him because he was an LGBTQ+ activist. A settlement was eventually reached, with the team agreeing to donate to groups that support gay rights, implement sensitivity training and set up a national symposium on LGBTQ+ tolerance.
'It's not really a stable society if you can get fired from your job for something you're saying on your free time that really isn't damaging or harmful,' Kluwe said Monday. 'It's just you being a person. And so I think it's indicative of more of a broader problem in American society, that we've kind of weaponized the idea of going after someone's speech … I think it's unfortunate that we've reached a point in our society where it seems like the go-to is for people to instantly try to get someone fired, when they say something that person doesn't agree with.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana case on whether racial redistricting is unconstitutional
The Supreme Court has teed up a major case for next term on whether racial redistricting is unconstitutional. In a Friday night scheduling order, the high court asked parties to file briefs on whether Louisiana's creation of a second majority-minority House seat violates the 14th or 15th Amendments. The question could significantly curtail efforts to force states to create majority-minority congressional districts. The order is part of a case from the 2024 term regarding Louisiana's congressional map that justices decided to hold over for re-argument. The justices set a deadline of Aug. 27 for briefs to be filed by appellants on the question. Reply briefs are due Oct. 3, the Friday before the beginning of the 2025 session. In June, the Supreme Court ordered further arguments over Louisiana's congressional map that was approved by the state's GOP-led legislature and created a second majority-Black district. An order from the court issued on the last day of the 2024 term restored the case to its calendar for reargument. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the move to order more arguments and said the court should have decided the case. The move meant the state's map with two majority-Black districts would remain intact for now. The district lines at the center of the dispute were invalidated in 2022 by a three-judge lower court panel, which sided with a group of self-described "non-African-American voters" who had challenged the House map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The map wasn't the first crafted by the state's Republican-led legislature in the wake of the 2020 Census. Instead, Louisiana's efforts to redraw district lines, as all states do after the census, have resulted in a yearslong legal battle that has been before the Supreme Court twice before. The case demonstrated the challenges state lawmakers face when trying to balance trying to comply with the Voting Rights Act without relying too much on race in the drawing the political lines, which can run afoul of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's decision is also likely to have implications for the balance of power in the House in the 2026 midterm elections, when Republicans will try to hold onto their tiny Crawford contributed to this report.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Obama's Russiagate meddling: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 2, 2025
The Issue: Reports that ex-President Barack Obama advanced the Russian collusion narrative in 2016. Kudos for Martin Gurri's piece on 'Obamagate' ('From Russia with nothing to speak of,' July 29) It's ironic that the framing of President Trump as a 'threat to democracy' was a red herring for the actual harm being done to us by President Barack Obama and his acolytes. His abuse of his high office was even more egregious than President Richard Nixon's, and similarly has greatly discredited our nation. It's irrelevant that this treachery didn't rise to the crime of treason. The defamation is every bit as damaging and wrongful. And to top it off, the legacy media remained complicit throughout. 'Democracy dies in darkness,' indeed! James Evans Worcester, Mass. We, the 'democracy-threatening,' 'stupid,' 'racist' MAGA citizens, are finally breathing the rarefied air of truth. Thank you, Martin Gurri, for your detailed and revealing piece on the Russiagate hoax. From ancient times to the present, the lust for power has destroyed many cultures. Now, may free speech, strong advocates and honor protect us as we unravel a historic example of hubris run amok. The waxed wings of Icarus melted, and he died, but our democracy will survive. Abby Rudnick Farmingdale, NJ In 2020, the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Marco Rubio, stated that the committee unequivocally found absolutely no evidence that Donald Trump and/or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in the 2016 election. However, it did conclude that there was irrefutable evidence of Russian attempts at meddling. And that is exactly what President Obama went on television and told the American public. This new obfuscation is just another sophomoric Trump administration attempt at deflection from what he is doing to this country, and what he is hiding. Lou Maione Manhattan Mainstream media were enamored with Obama through all eight years of his presidency, without ever questioning his performance. This was a love affair, pure and simple. And it remains so to this day, even as we now know that Obama directed a false operation to discredit his successor's victory. History is written by the victors, except when a paper trail exposes their betrayals, as Trump is now revealing about Obama. Paul Bloustein Cincinnati, Ohio Now that we know more about what happened, it's not really surprising to learn of Obama's involvement in Russiagate. After all, he rose out of the corrupt Chicago machine, and then callously lied to millions of people about their health insurance and access to doctors, and now we learn about this. Michelle Obama told us that her mother didn't trust anyone who took more than they needed. Look at the harm Barack has done, and now he has a huge net worth, owning mansions in Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii. Michelle's mom was right after all, wasn't she? Gary Mottola Brooklyn So the legacy media now want the public to move on from the Russia collusion hoax perpetrated by them. They were even given awards for this scam. I say: No! Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel should now investigate what the Obama administration did in that meeting on Dec. 9, 2016 at the White House. Republicans can never forget what was done to their elected president. Andrew Franza Dallas, Pa. No one should be shocked about the recent revelations that Obama was the mastermind behind the Russia collusion hoax. In February 2017, Paul Sperry wrote a column for The Post ('Bam-lined lie,' Feb. 19, 2017) in which he revealed the existence of Obama's 'Organizing For Action' (OFA), which included the recruitment of thousands of footsoldiers to sabotage the Trump presidency. It is doubtful whether any American today has learned anything new. J. J. Crovatto Ramsey, NJ Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
