Ryan Walters asks for summary judgment in defamation lawsuit filed by former Norman teacher
Attorney David Gleason, of Oklahoma City, made the filing Monday in the federal lawsuit brought by Summer Boismier in August 2023. Gleason moved into a primary role in the case after the withdrawal of attorney Tim Davis of Fort Worth, Texas, in January.
Last April, U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones rejected a previous motion by Walters to dismiss the lawsuit. The lawsuit is on Jones' trial docket for June 2025, and the length of the trial is expected to be four days.
In his filing, Gleason offered a handful of reasons why Boismier's suit should be dismissed. Gleason said under Oklahoma law, public school teachers are public figures, which requires a higher standard to prove defamation. He said all of Walters' alleged defamatory statements about Boismier all related to her teaching duties.
Boismier and Walters long have been at odds. Boismier resigned from Norman Public Schools in August 2022 after drawing attention to her protest against House Bill 1775, an Oklahoma law that prohibits schools from covering certain concepts on race and gender. In her classroom, Boismier covered shelves with red butcher paper and posted a sign written in black marker that read, "Books the state doesn't want you to read." She also posted a QR code to the Brooklyn Public Library, which gives students online access to banned books.
Boismier sued Walters in federal court in August 2023, claiming posts published by Walters on his public accounts on X in August 2022 — when he served as Gov. Kevin Stitt's secretary of education — contained 'false and misleading statements,' including that Boismier had been fired from Norman Public Schools, that she had distributed pornography to students and that she had 'sexualized her classroom.'
Walters falsely claimed the Norman district had fired Boismier.
She said in her lawsuit she 'was a teacher rather than a politician or public figure' when those statements were published. Walters has said his statements don't constitute libel or defamation and has cited multiple defenses, including those related to his First Amendment right to free speech.
Gleason said in his filing Boismier 'made herself a public figure by participating in numerous interviews regarding her departure from Norman Public Schools and her opposition to HB 1775 and its implementation' and that she cannot prove Walters acted with 'actual malice.'
Be the first to know: Sign up for breaking news email alerts
Gleason also wrote that Walters' statements about Boismier were privileged, due to his status as a public official and that Walters is immune from liability under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, a law that allows people to sue state or local governments for the actions of their employees, but which also protects government employees from personal liability, unless they acted in bad faith. Gleason also wrote that statements of opinion cannot serve as the basis of a defamation lawsuit.
Boismier also has a lawsuit pending against the Oklahoma State Board of Education, which is chaired by Walters, pending in Oklahoma County District Court. In that case, she's asked a state judge to reverse the board's decision to revoke her teaching license.
She now lives in New York and works for the Brooklyn Public Library.
Boismier's attorney, Brady Henderson, said the filing by Gleason didn't surprise him, but Henderson added he was still reviewing what had been filed before deciding what to do.
"This really isn't a surprise," Henderson said. "I've seen it before. We just have to review it and see what to do from there."
Henderson said Boismier's legal team recently lost a member — attorney Ryan Kiesel, who died last week — and they were regrouping.
"There is a lot to review," he said. "Once we get that done we will have a better idea of where to go."
Walters is, or has been, a defendant in at least 18 lawsuits filed in state and federal court since he became state superintendent in January 2023. He has lost one of those lawsuits and settled another, with the plaintiff that sued him receiving most of what it asked for in the lawsuit.
Walters has an appeal pending in another case, a libel lawsuit filed by Bixby Public Schools Superintendent Rob Miller. Tulsa County District Judge Daman Cantrell ruled in December against a motion by Walters' attorneys to dismiss the suit, and the appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court concerns that decision. The Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on the appeal, while the rest of the case proceeds in district court.
In yet another case, one which resulted in a split ruling on Dec. 31, attorneys for a Moore student prevented by one of Walters' administrative rules from changing their pronouns in student records appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
In the ruling, Cleveland County District Judge Michael Tupper wrote that while the rule passed by the state Board of Education concerning student records was 'valid and enforceable,' the board violated the student's right to due process under both the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act by 'failing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.'
The student is appealing the portion of Tupper's ruling that said the state board's action in creating the administrative rule was proper. The student's attorneys wrote in their appeal that the board's actions were 'invalid because no statute authorizes or contemplates such regulation' and because the board violated the so-called 'separation of powers' legal doctrine by refusing to comply with a court order that mandated the change of the student's gender marker, among other reasons.
That appeal is pending with the Supreme Court.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Ryan Walters wants summary judgment in lawsuit filed by Norman teacher
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bryan Kohberger Victims' Families Sue Over Crime Scene Photos: ‘Don't Look at Them'
The families of Madison Mogen and Ethan Chapin, two of the four Idaho college students murdered by Bryan Kohberger, have sued the city of Moscow, Idaho, over the release of crime scene photos. While appearing on NewsNation's Banfield, attorney Leander James — the lawyer representing Mogen and Chapin's families — explained why they believe the lawsuit is necessary. 'They had actually reached a point by the time of the sentencing that they actually had some closure and were able to sort of start to move on somehow,' James told guest host Brian Entin on Monday, August 18. 'Then they get hit with this, all of this ugly stuff getting released.' While James acknowledged that there will likely be photos released due to public interest surrounding the killings, he's hoping 'death scene photos' can remain private. Bryan Kohberger Sentenced to 4 Lifetimes in Prison: Who Were the Idaho Murder Victims? 'Who wants to look at this stuff?' he asked. 'This is just plain wrong. And me, personally, I'm a fan of the First Amendment, I appreciate what the media does, and I appreciate transparency and the right of the public to know. But there is a line there somewhere, and I think we're over that line.' In July, Kohberger was sentenced to four life sentences in prison, more than two years after he murdered Mogen, Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves and Xana Kernodle in their Moscow home. Weeks before sentencing, Kohberger pleaded guilty to all four murders in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. In the early hours of November 13, 2022, police say Kohberger entered the students' home wearing a black mask before stabbing all four of his victims to death. 'This unfathomable and senseless act of evil has caused immeasurable pain and loss. No parent should ever have to bury their child,' Judge Steven Hippler stated at sentencing. 'This is the greatest tragedy that can be inflicted upon a person.' What Idaho Victims' Surviving Roommates Said at Bryan Kohberger's Sentencing In his latest interview with NewsNation, James explained why Mogen and Chapin's families wanted to take legal action to prevent more photos of the crime from being released to the public. 'For them, I think it's an unwarranted invasion into their privacy for any of the interior photos to get out there, or any of the gory photos,' he shared. 'I think the core images here are images of the death scene, the bodies and those types of things where the murders took place. Those, I think, are the most objectionable and are an unwarranted evasion and should not be released.' Before a judge makes a ruling on what, if anything else, can be released, James asked anyone who sees the images 'to think of the parents and the family members of these kids who were killed and to think about how they would feel if they were in their situation and to not view these photos. Please don't look at them if they're out there.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Emmanuel Macron rips Candace Owens for ‘spreading false information' as French president addresses lawsuit: ‘Defending my honor'
French President Emmanuel Macron blasted online provocateur Candace Owens as a liar who 'knew very well that she was spreading false information' about his wife Brigitte being born male. The French leader criticized Owens in his first public comments since filing a defamation suit in Delaware last month, telling the Paris Match magazine that the conspiracy theorist pushed vile lies 'with the aim of causing harm, in the service of an ideology.' The president told the publication that he rejected aides' advice to drop the matter and instead decided to pursue litigation because it was 'a matter of defending my honor.' 4 French President Emmanuel Macron blasted Candace Owens as a liar who 'knew very well that she was spreading false information' about his wife Brigitte being born male. AFP via Getty Images 'They're talking about the identity of the first lady of France, of a wife, mother and grandmother. It's a matter of defending my honor,' Macron said. The French leader said he was compelled to take legal action due to Owens' considerable reach in the US. 'This has become such a big issue in the United States that we had to respond,' Macron said Tuesday. 'It's a question of having the truth respected.' Owens fired back on her podcast Wednesday, mocking the French president as 'such a little punk' and 'a big weenie' for refusing to say her name during the interview. 'He will not say my name! I feel like Destiny's Child! He's acting kinda shady… Macron, say my name!' the controversial commentator fumed. 4 Owens fired back on her podcast Wednesday, mocking the French president as 'such a little punk' and 'a big weanie' for refusing to say her name during the interview. Chris Dilts/Sipa USA The bitter feud erupted after Owens produced an eight-part podcast series titled 'Becoming Brigitte' that pushed wild conspiracy theories about France's first couple and their relationship. The Macrons' lawsuit accuses Owens of spreading the transgender rumor to 'promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money.' Macron revealed the couple initially resisted taking legal action when the allegations first surfaced in France, fearing they'd trigger the Streisand effect — amplifying the lies by fighting them. But as Owens' claims gained traction in America, the French president said they couldn't stay silent any longer. '[Owens] is someone who knew very well that she was spreading false information and did so with the aim of causing harm,' Macron alleged. He added that Owens had 'established connections to far-right leaders' while espousing her views. Owens and her supporters have denounced the lawsuit as an attempt by a foreign government to roll back an American journalist's First Amendment rights. Macron dismissed that defense, arguing that free speech doesn't shield Owens from consequences for spreading malicious 'nonsense' about his wife. 4 The Macrons' lawsuit accuses Owens of spreading the transgender rumor to 'promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money.' AFP via Getty Images The French president then took a swipe at the MAGA movement, suggesting its free speech warriors were hypocrites. 'Those talking about so-called freedom of speech are the same ones banning reporters from the Oval Office,' he said. His comment referenced the White House's recent decision to bar Associated Press journalists from the Oval Office and Air Force One after the organization's coverage of President Trump's renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. Owens interpreted Macron's White House criticism as a direct shot at Trump himself. '[Macron's statement about the White House not letting pool reporters in] sounds like a jab at Trump,' she said on her podcast. 4 '[Owens] is someone who knew very well that she was spreading false information and did so with the aim of causing harm,' Macron alleged. AFP via Getty Images The Macrons have categorically denied every allegation Owens made in her series about Brigitte's background and their marriage. French advisors had warned the presidential couple that responding to the rumors could backfire by drawing more attention to them. But Macron insisted the American spread of the conspiracy theories made silence impossible. The Delaware lawsuit marks a rare instance of a foreign head of state suing an American media personality for defamation.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Texas loses first round in court battle over 10 Commandments in schools
(The Center Square) – The state of Texas has lost its first round in a legal battle filed by nonreligious parents and religious leaders from multiple faiths who oppose having the 10 Commandments posted in public school classrooms. U.S. District Judge Fred Biery on Wednesday temporarily blocked a new law from going into effect Sept. 1. In his 55-page ruling issued after a two-day hearing in San Antonio, Biery said the law "likely violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution. He granted the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. He also denied the state's motion to dismiss. 'Ultimately, in matters of conscience, faith, beliefs and the soul, most people are Garbo-esque,' Biery wrote. 'They just want to be left alone, neither proselytized nor ostracized, including what occurs to their children in government run schools. 'Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do. Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: 'Mrs. Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?' Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues, Mahmoud, 145 S. Ct. at 2355, and a classic example of the law of unintended consequences in legislative edicts.' He said the Texas legislature could also require public schools to post 'the Five Moral Precepts of Buddhism: abstain from killing, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, lying and intoxicants,' or other texts. Biery also issued a closing remark to those who disagreed with his ruling. 'For those who disagree with the Court's decision and who would do so with threats, vulgarities and violence, Grace and Peace unto you. May humankind of all faiths, beliefs and non-beliefs be reconciled one to another,' he wrote before his signature on the order. The lawsuit was filed after Gov. Greg Abbott signed SB 10 into law on June 22, which requires every public-school classroom in Texas to post a copy of the Ten Commandments beginning in the 2025-2026 school year, The Center Square reported. Protestant pastors, Islamic leaders and nonreligious parents from north Texas school districts sued the Texas Education Agency, Dallas ISD, Desota ISD and Lancaster ISD in U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas. They argue SB 10 violates the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution and 'no federal court has upheld any display of the Ten Commandments by a public school.' 'Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every Texas public-school classroom unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, reverence, and adoption of the state's mandated religious scripture,' violating the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, the lawsuit argues. SB 10 also 'substantially interferes with the rights of parents to direct their children's religious education and upbringing,' violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the lawsuit argues. They also argue SB 10 violates the Texas Constitution, which states, 'No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.' Biery agreed. Attorney General Ken Paxton has said he is appealing the ruling. A lawsuit filed over a similar bill in Louisiana has so far been struck down, including more recently in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
