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.”