Judge rules for Ryan Walters in defamation lawsuit filed by former Norman teacher
U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones in Oklahoma City ruled Summer Boismier's actions in protesting House Bill 1775 – an Oklahoma law that prohibits schools from covering certain concepts on race and gender – 'rendered her a 'limited-purpose' public figure' and that she did not demonstrate that a false statement Walters made about her being fired from her teaching job was made with 'actual malice,' a standard for defamation.
'The court does not suggest that Boismier or anyone else should be dissuaded from speaking loudly and passionately about causes in which they believe,' Jones wrote. 'She, like all others, is free to publicly disagree with this state's politicians, subject to the protections and limits of the First Amendment. But when one voluntarily steps out from the shadows of private life to speak on a matter of public controversy, the Supreme Court has made clear that the burden to prevail in a defamation action is a formidable one. And here, the court concludes that Boismier has not met it.'
More: Teachers begin speaking out against Ryan Walters: 'You're putting students in jeopardy'
A news release sent on letterhead of the taxpayer-funded Oklahoma State Department of Education touted the decision as a 'Victory for Parental Rights and Educational Integrity.' Walters leads the agency.
'We have sent a clear message that Oklahoma's schools will remain free from political indoctrination and that our children deserve an education that is focused on core academic values, not the promotion of controversial ideologies,' Walters said in the statement.
Brady Henderson, an attorney for Boismier, told The Oklahoman that 'we will review the case and determine next steps soon.'
The case had been set to go to trial in June before an attorney for Walters, David Gleason of Oklahoma City, filed the motion for summary judgment in February.
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. 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, who actually resigned from her teaching position.
She said in her lawsuit she 'was a teacher rather than a politician or public figure' when those statements were published. Walters said his statements didn't constitute libel or defamation and cited multiple defenses, including those related to his First Amendment right to free speech.
As superintendent, Walters moved to revoke Boismier's teaching license, going so far as to push the state Board of Education to ignore an administrative law judge's finding that the board failed to prove that Boismier broke any law.
With encouragement from Walters, the board voted to revoke Boismier's license. She sued in Oklahoma County District Court, seeking a reversal of the board's decision, but there's been no movement in that case since last October.
Boismier now lives in New York and works for the Brooklyn Public Library.
Walters, a conservative firebrand, is or has been a defendant in at least 20 lawsuits since taking office in January 2023. He's now prevailed in two of them and lost two of them, with the others pending.
Contributing: M. Scott Carter
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Judge rules for Ryan Walters in defamation suit filed by former teacher
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Oklahoma testing some incoming teachers to spot ‘radical leftist ideology'
A new test will be administered to out-of-state teachers coming to Oklahoma from blue states in a move the state superintendent said is meant to root out 'radical leftist ideology' from classrooms. The test, set to be administered by conservative educational platform PragerU, will be required for the teachers to receive an Oklahoma certification. 'As long as I am superintendent, Oklahoma classrooms will be safeguarded from the radical leftist ideology fostered in places like California and New York. Any teacher coming from these states will be required to pass our new PragerU assessment before receiving certification, because we refuse to let Gavin Newsom's woke, Marxist agenda turn Oklahoma into the same dumpster fire California has become,' Ryan Walters said. The test has not been administered yet but a spokesperson for Walters's office said it will be 'very soon.' While the full test was not shared, some questions seen by The Hill ask incoming teachers basic civics questions, such as the first three words of the Constitution and why freedom of religion is important in America. The move comes after other controversial initiatives by Walters in Oklahoma such as trying to put Bibles in every classroom or changing the way the 2020 election is taught to work in President Trump's baseless allegations of widespread fraud.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fifth Circuit blocks WT drag show ban, citing First Amendment
A federal appeals court has ruled that West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler cannot bar student drag shows on campus, finding the performances are protected under the First Amendment. In a 2-1 decision Monday, Aug. 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a ruling from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, who had previously declined to block Wendler's cancellation of a student-organized drag show. The panel imposed a preliminary injunction, ensuring students may stage drag shows while the case continues in trial court. The case stems from Spectrum WT, an LGBTQ+ student group that planned 'A Fool's Drag Race' in March 2023 to raise money for The Trevor Project. Students promoted the show as PG-13, with restrictions on profanity and lewd conduct. Eleven days before the event, Wendler canceled it, writing in a campus-wide email that drag 'stereotypes women in cartoon-like extremes' and comparing the performances to blackface. Court's reasoning Judge Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee writing for the majority, said the context of Spectrum WT's event made its expressive message clear. 'Against this backdrop, the message sent by parading on a theater stage in attire of the opposite sex would have been unmistakable,' he wrote. The court emphasized that the constitutional principle at stake reached beyond this single event. 'Because theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, and because we find the plaintiffs' drag show is protected expression,' Southwick wrote, 'Wendler's censorship failed to pass constitutional muster.' From the archives: Lawsuit filed against WT and Texas A&M University System over canceled drag show Judge James Dennis, a Clinton appointee, joined Southwick's opinion. The panel also ruled that Legacy Hall, where the drag show was scheduled, is a designated public forum used by churches, political candidates and student groups. By barring drag performances, the majority concluded, Wendler engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The majority also cited Wendler's cancellation of another Spectrum WT drag show in 2024 and his repeated declarations that no such shows would be allowed on campus, finding students faced ongoing irreparable harm to their speech rights. Judge James Ho dissented, arguing drag is 'not inherently expressive' and that Spectrum WT had not shown it was entitled to such an 'extraordinary remedy.' Reaction from FIRE The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Spectrum WT, hailed the decision as a reaffirmation of student rights. 'FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler's unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M,' said FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney JT Morris. 'This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors.' Speaking Monday evening with the Amarillo Globe-News, Morris said the ruling underscored a broader point. 'This decision makes clear that President Wendler cannot impose his personal views on students' expressive rights. The First Amendment protects drag shows just like it protects political rallies, concerts or theater.' Student pushback Even before the lawsuit, Wendler's ban ignited protests on campus. Students and alumni rallied outside the university, accusing administrators of censorship and discrimination. At one demonstration, WT alumna Coco Dietz said Wendler's reasoning was rooted in bias. 'We have never come into other's organizations to shut them down because of a personal bias or prejudice, so you cannot come here and shut ours down and not expect pushback,' she said, adding that Wendler was 'acting like this is a private Christian university, when we are a public university.' From the archives: WT student organizations' drag show raises $10,000 for Trevor Project amid controversy Lauren Stovall, vice president of Spectrum WT, framed the controversy as a fight for core freedoms. 'This is not an issue just about drag; we are protesting for freedom of speech,' she said. 'The First Amendment is what our country is built on: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of petition. Walter Wendler is trying to take that away from us.' Wider drag debate in Texas The Fifth Circuit's ruling is part of a larger battle over drag in Texas. In 2023, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 12, which sought to restrict drag performances in public spaces. A federal judge later struck it down as unconstitutional, but the state has appealed, and litigation is ongoing. At the same time, the Texas A&M University System, along with the University of Texas and University of North Texas, adopted bans after pressure from conservative officials. Earlier this year, another federal court blocked the A&M System's prohibition, allowing the 'Draggieland' event to proceed in College Station. That case, like WT's, remains active. What's next The WT case now returns to federal district court in Amarillo. The university could appeal to the full Fifth Circuit or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the injunction. For now, the decision ensures Spectrum WT can move forward with drag performances on campus while the constitutional fight continues. Supporters see the outcome as part of a broader warning to officials tempted to silence unpopular expression. As Morris put it, 'Students don't give up their rights when they enroll in a taxpayer-funded university.' On Aug. 19, West Texas A&M University said it does not comment on pending litigation. This article originally appeared on Amarillo Globe-News: Fifth Circuit blocks WT drag show ban on First Amendment grounds Solve the daily Crossword
