Creston teacher favored in judge’s ruling

After nearly a month of deliberation, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger has ruled the Creston Community School District is prohibited from taking any adverse employment actions against Crook for her Facebook comment.

Following the comment Crook made on Sept. 10 regarding the death of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, CCSD Superintendent Deron Stender placed Crook on administrative leave and later recommended the school board terminate her.

In October, Crook filed a complaint against CCSD alleging violations of her First Amendment rights based on their response to her Facebook comment.

In her ruling Tuesday, Goodgame Ebinger said the defendants lacked evidence to show the disruption was large enough to justify censoring Crook.

Defendants’ stance

During the preliminary injunction hearing held Thursday, Dec. 11 and Monday, Dec. 15, defendants argued that actions taken by Stender and the district were legal and warranted in order to stop disruption and keep students and staff safe.

“[Threats of pulling students from the district] posed real risks to classroom balance and the district’s finances,” defendants said in their closing arguments. “Additionally, students expressed concern over their own safety given the frequent hostility expressed online. ... Those concerns required the district to pay for off-duty law enforcement to be present at the district’s buildings for a full week, eating into the district’s budget. And the high school’s administrators needed to spend the entire week monitoring the hallways.”

In addition to this, defendants put forward numerous call and email logs from the week the Facebook comment was made, outlining this extra communication as disruption for the administration.

“Those disruptions clearly support the conclusion that [Crook]’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment,” the defense concluded.

Judge’s opinion

However, Goodgame Ebinger disagreed with this sentiment, stating “responses originating from outside of the district are not probative of disruption.

“Defendants provide the court with four emails, one of which originates from a parent in the Creston community and one of which suggest by its context it originates from a district community member,” Goodgame Ebinger said. “Defendants do not identify how many of the telephone calls received originated from members of the Creston Community School District such that the calls could be considered internal disruption to the district’s operations. Upon review of the voicemails, only one of the 104 voicemail messages appears to be from a parent or student.”

Regarding student balance and district finances, the judge said the scale of students that would leave weren’t enough to heavily affect the district.

“Four parents of students in the district submitted affidavits expressing they would likely pull their students from Crook’s class or the district if Crook continued to teach,” Goodgame Ebinger wrote. “However, four to six parents indicating a potential future intent to withdraw their children from a district of 1,300 students does not carry the day.”

In regards to student and school safety, Goodgame Ebinger cited the lack of student testimonies with the defense against their argument.

“No students testified as to the threat of violence at the school or submitted affidavits concerning the rumor regarding school violence at the preliminary injunction hearing,” Goodgame Ebinger wrote. “Additionally, because Stender requested law enforcement presence at the school after his and others’ determination that the threat of violence was unsubstantiated, the court does not find the law enforcement presence on campus probative of disruption to the district’s activities.”

The judge concluded that, while the defendants were not required to “allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action,” there wasn’t enough evidence of actual or future disruption for Stender to place Crook on administrative leave or recommend her termination when he did.

Goodgame Ebinger also said actions taken by Stender and the district also threatened other district staff members’ First Amendment rights.

“It is reasonable to infer Stender’s investigation of Crook, decision to place her on administrative leave the same day she posted her Facebook message and threat of termination through the Notice of Recommendation to Terminate places Crook’s colleagues in fear of similar district actions should they engage in similar speech,” Goodgame Ebinger said, “[with one affidavit] noting ‘some staff interpreted [Stender’s] email,’ which advised staff to ‘err on the side of caution in their political expression’ in regard to an unrelated incident, ‘as meaning they would face consequences if they expressed themselves online.’”

Ruling

Based on all the evidence before her, Goodgame Ebinger found “the enforcement of First Amendment rights outweighs any potential employment hard to defendants.”

However, the judge did not fulfill Crook’s complete request.

“A grant of Crook’s request for ultimate relief is not warranted at this preliminary stage of proceedings,” Goodgame Ebinger wrote. “Because Crook was on administrative leave at the time of the filing of the motion, the court enters a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and goes no further.”

While the judge is not reinstating Crook to her teaching position, the district is prohibited from taking any adverse employment actions against Crook based on Stender’s termination recommendation or Crook’s Facebook comment.

Further court proceedings will occur as Crook is pursuing legal action against the school district, school board, Stender as superintendent and an individual and Don Gee as board president and an individual.

Similar cases

Crook is far from the only Iowa teacher to have been reprimanded for negative Kirk-related social media comments.

Teachers Katherine Mejia of Manchester and Jennifer Smith of Johnston are suing the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners and its executive director, Michael Cavin, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

The lawsuit challenges Cavin’s written solicitation of professional licensing complaints related to the shooting death of Kirk in September 2025. That solicitation, the teachers argue, resulted in complaints of unethical conduct filed against them by their employers. The lawsuit alleges the actions of Cavin and the board have violated the teachers’ First Amendment right to comment on matters of public concern.

Several other lawsuits have been filed by Iowa educators, a public defender and a paramedic, all of whom allege they were fired or sanctioned for online comments posted in the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s death. Those lawsuits have focused on the actions of the employers, while Mejia’s and Smith’s lawsuit targets the state licensing board and its executive director.

Iowa Capital Dispatch contributed to the final portion of this article.