One Year Later: Charlie Kirk’s Voice Still Matters

One year ago, Charlie Kirk was killed for speaking openly about his beliefs. His death was a tragedy, but it must not be allowed to silence the constitutional freedoms he defended.

The answer to speech we dislike is not violence. It is more speech, better arguments, peaceful debate, voting, organizing, and holding leaders accountable. Those rights belong to every American, regardless of party, religion, race, or viewpoint.

Charlie’s legacy should be a renewed commitment to use the First Amendment the right way: speak your mind, listen when you disagree, challenge ideas, and stand up for what you believe without fear. Political violence is not courage. It is cowardice, and it is an attack on the Constitution itself.

There are people on the left, right, and everywhere in between who have allowed anger to replace discussion. That has to stop. America does not survive because we all agree. America survives because we protect the right to disagree peacefully.

Charlie Kirk’s death was not in vain if it reminds us that our constitutional rights are worth exercising, defending, and preserving for the next generation.

Justice is not cheap when the government has wronged you.

At this point, I have spent $61,762 in legal fees seeking accountability, not because I wanted a fight, but because I refused to surrender my constitutional rights.

The lawsuit, Gately v. Suelzer et al. (Case No. 1:26-cv-01480-ABD), filed by David Sergi of Sergi & Associates in San Marcos, Texas, challenges my termination after I refused to censor political statements I wrote in my personal capacity as a Republican Precinct Chair.

The federal court has ruled that I adequately pleaded all four elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court recognized that my statements about a local election were core political speech on a matter of public concern. It further found that my interest in speaking outweighed the department’s claimed interest in workplace “harmony,” particularly because my release relied entirely on publicly available information.

The Court also preserved my request for reinstatement. A continued refusal to re-employ someone after a retaliatory termination can be an ongoing constitutional violation, and that part of this fight moves forward.

I have also instructed my attorney to pursue a state lawsuit concerning violations of my rights under the Texas Constitution. I am doing this because federal and state constitutional protections both matter, and because sovereign-immunity limits can restrict the remedies available in federal court. Reinstatement is important, but it is not the whole issue. State law provides another avenue for the courts to examine the conduct, determine responsibility, and address the harm caused.

The Texas Constitution protects free speech, too. Article I, Section 8 provides that every person is free to speak, write, and publish opinions on any subject. My political statements were made in my personal capacity as a Republican Precinct Chair, concerning a public election, not as part of my government job.

Texas law says the same thing in plain terms. Texas Government Code § 556.003 provides that state employees have the rights of freedom of association and political participation guaranteed by the Texas and United States Constitutions.

My speech was made personally, as a Republican Precinct Chair, about a public election. I was not using government time, government equipment, government resources, or government authority to make my views known. The Texas Government Code recognizes that being a state employee does not require a person to surrender the constitutional rights every other citizen has.

The federal judge’s ruling matters because the Court has already found that I adequately pleaded a First Amendment retaliation claim and recognized that my statements were core political speech on a matter of public concern. The Court also found, at this stage of the case, that my interest in speaking outweighed the department’s claimed interest in suppressing that speech.

That federal ruling does not decide the Texas constitutional claims for the state court, but it is important. It confirms that this was not minor workplace gossip or misconduct. It was protected political speech. I am pursuing the state case because Texas’ Constitution deserves to be enforced as well, and because accountability should not disappear simply because one court’s available remedies are limited.

But this fight is not just about getting my job back. Reinstatement is only one part of it. This is about accountability for those who took an oath and failed to honor it.

Money comes and goes. Your word either means what you say it means, or it does not. Integrity should not be a moving target, especially for people entrusted with public authority. When it becomes one, taxpayers are the ones who ultimately pay the price.

It is also hard dealing with the same agency that fired you while it appears to be looking for, or trying to manufacture, new claims to pressure you into removing yourself from the department altogether.

That is how people get worn down. If you do not have the money to fight, you may never find justice. And when no one can afford to hold an agency accountable, the people responsible can continue violating the rights of other members.

That is why it matters that we vote for honest, truthful political leaders, people who understand that public service is not a shield from accountability.

Our government has three equal branches, and there is more than one way to hold bad actors accountable.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that barred licensed gun owners from carrying handguns onto private property open to the public unless they first received the owner’s express permission, ruling 6-3 that the restriction violated the Second Amendment.

The decision in Wolford v. Lopez reversed a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and sent the case back for further proceedings. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court’s conservative majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett also wrote a concurrence. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The Hawaii law required people with concealed-carry permits to obtain “express authorization” before bringing a firearm into businesses and other private property open to the public. The court said the law flipped the traditional rule that people may enter property held open to the public unless the owner says otherwise.

“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects,” Alito wrote, saying the law interfered with the right to carry firearms for self-defense during daily life.

Alito rejected Hawaii’s argument that its local customs and laws justified the rule, writing that the Second Amendment has the same meaning in every state. He said it cannot give way to “the spirit of Aloha” and added that local attitudes cannot change the meaning of rights applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

The ruling does not prevent private property owners from banning firearms. The court said owners of establishments open to the public may still admit or exclude people carrying guns. But Hawaii cannot make exclusion the statewide default unless owners affirmatively opt in to allowing firearms, the majority said.

Hawaii officials had argued that the law protected property owners’ rights and balanced those rights against the right to carry firearms. Gun rights challengers, including three Maui County residents with concealed-carry permits and a Honolulu-based advocacy group, said the rule amounted to a broad restriction on lawful public carry.

In dissent, Jackson said the case was about property rights, not gun rights, and accused the majority of turning the court’s 2022 gun-rights decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen into a “free-for-all.” She said the ruling improperly limited lawmakers trying to protect both gun owners and property owners.

Kagan wrote separately that Hawaii’s law was consistent with historical regulations aimed at addressing harms caused by people carrying guns on other people’s land.

The decision is the court’s latest major Second Amendment ruling since Bruen, which held that people have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. The court did not take up separate parts of Hawaii’s law involving firearms at beaches, bars and other sensitive places

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that the state has formally asked the federal government to reimburse more than $10 billion spent on border security efforts under Operation Lone Star.

Abbott said Texas submitted documentation to the Homeland Security Department seeking repayment for costs tied to the border initiative, which he launched in March 2021. The operation has deployed Texas National Guard members and state troopers, built border barriers and used state resources to target illegal crossings, drug smuggling and other border-related crimes.

“For four years under Biden, Texas spent more than $10 billion of taxpayer money to secure the border,” Abbott said in a statement. “I have formally submitted Texas’ application to the Department of Homeland Security for reimbursement.”

The governor’s office said the reimbursement money was included in the federal law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill. The money is being administered through the Homeland Security Department and the Justice Department, and Abbott said Texas will also seek reimbursement from the Justice Department.

Operation Lone Star has been one of Abbott’s signature border policies and a frequent point of conflict with the Biden administration, which challenged some Texas border measures in court. Critics have also questioned the operation’s cost, legal footing and effect on migrants and border communities.

Abbott said he will work with Texas’ congressional delegation, President Donald Trump and federal agencies to recover the money. The governor’s office said Texas bore the largest share of state border security expenses eligible for reimbursement.

 A growing list of public employees punished for social media posts about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has begun winning settlements, reinstatements and legal victories, renewing a national debate over how far government employers can go when political speech causes outrage.

Maria Ruhtenberg, an attorney with the Iowa Office of the State Public Defender, was fired after private Facebook posts about Kirk drew one complaint and later a media inquiry. She appealed, got her job back and later settled a federal First Amendment retaliation lawsuit for $125,000.

She is not alone. NPR reported that other resolved cases include Melissa Crook, an Iowa high school teacher who settled for $145,000 and benefits; Suzanne Swierc, a Ball State University health educator who settled for $225,000; Brittney Brown, a Florida wildlife biologist who settled for $485,000; Darren Michael, an Austin Peay State University professor who was reinstated and received $500,000; and Larry Bushart, a retired Tennessee law enforcement officer who received $835,000 after being jailed for a Facebook post about Kirk.

Two more public university cases also ended in reversals. Phillip Michael Hook, a tenured art professor at the University of South Dakota, was reinstated after a court fight over a private Facebook post. At Clemson University, Dr. Joshua Bregy, an assistant professor, reached a settlement after the university agreed to rescind his termination and provide pay and benefits through the original term of his employment.

The cases followed a wave of punishment after Kirk was fatally shot Sept. 10, 2025. Reuters reported that more than 600 people were fired, suspended, investigated or otherwise disciplined over comments about his death, with educators among the most frequent targets.

The First Amendment does not protect every worker from every workplace consequence. Private employers generally have more room to discipline employees. But when the employer is the government, the Constitution limits retaliation against workers speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern.

That principle reaches back to the Supreme Court’s 1968 ruling in Pickering v. Board of Education, which held that a public school teacher could not be fired simply for writing a newspaper letter criticizing school officials. The court said public employees retain free-speech rights, though those rights must be balanced against the government’s need to operate efficiently.

Later rulings narrowed and shaped that test. In Connick v. Myers, the court said employee speech must involve a matter of public concern to receive constitutional protection. In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the court held that speech made as part of official job duties is not protected in the same way as speech made as a private citizen.

The Kirk-related cases also draw from broader free-speech precedent. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the court sided with students, including Mary Beth Tinker, who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, ruling that students and teachers do not “shed” their rights at the schoolhouse gate. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court protected even inflammatory advocacy unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce it.

Other landmark winners include Gregory Lee Johnson, whose flag-burning protest was protected in Texas v. Johnson; Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, whose offensive funeral protests were protected in Snyder v. Phelps; and Simon Tam, whose band name was protected from viewpoint discrimination in Matal v. Tam.

For Ruhtenberg, Brown, Crook, Swierc, Michael, Bushart, Hook and Bregy, the legal question was not whether their posts were tasteful. It was whether government officials could punish them for speech made outside their official duties about a major public event.

So far, the answer in several cases has been costly for public employers.

Brown, who now has another job working with birds, told NPR she wanted her case to send a message: “You can’t get away with stuff like this.”

Date: June 14, 2026

Round Rock, Texas - Elon Musk has become the world’s first trillionaire after SpaceX’s historic public offering sent the company’s value past $2 trillion, according to Reuters. The IPO raised $75 billion and SpaceX shares jumped 19% in their Nasdaq debut.

But the bigger story is not just Musk’s wealth. It is how that wealth was created.

Reports estimate the SpaceX IPO could turn more than 4,000 current and former employees into millionaires, including engineers, welders, technicians and other workers who received company stock as part of their compensation. Fox Business reported that the windfall reaches beyond rocket designers to baristas, janitors and other workers who helped keep the company running.

That is what private enterprise is supposed to do. Build something. Take the risk. Reward the people who helped make it happen.

Democrats, however, responded the way they often do when private citizens create wealth outside government control: They looked for a way to tax it. Sen. Elizabeth Warren renewed her call for a wealth tax after Musk crossed the trillion-dollar mark, and Bloomberg Tax reported that Democratic lawmakers used the moment to push tax-the-rich proposals.

That raises a fair question for voters: When was the last time a Democratic government program created thousands of millionaires without first running taxpayer money through bureaucracy, subsidies, waste or fraud-prone public systems?

SpaceX did not make its workers rich by handing out government checks. It did it by building rockets, launching satellites, competing in the marketplace and giving workers a stake in the company’s success.

The left sees Musk’s trillion-dollar net worth and asks how much government can take. Conservatives should look at the same story and ask how many more American workers could build wealth if Washington stopped punishing success and started defending ownership, risk-taking and innovation.

Musk may be the headline. But the 4,000 new millionaires are the real story.

John J. Gately
Republican Precinct Chair – Precinct 338
Williamson County Republican Party
Round Rock, Texas