The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is at the center of a heated national debate over the boundaries of free speech, government authority, and community standards in schools and public spaces. From Alabama to Connecticut to California, recent legal battles and public controversies are testing the limits of the First Amendment in ways both familiar and entirely new.
On September 17, 2025, the ACLU of Alabama issued a statement that drew sharp lines in the sand. The group condemned not only politically motivated violence—referencing the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk—but also what it characterized as an "organized political effort" to target teachers and public servants for their social media posts about the incident. According to reporting by 1819 News, the ACLU’s statement read: "The ACLU of Alabama strongly condemns politically motivated violence. Unfortunately, we have been reminded multiple times this year that these killings have tragic consequences for families and communities. They also endanger the free and democratic exchange of ideas."
The situation in Alabama escalated after several educators posted controversial comments online about Kirk’s death. A graduate student at Auburn University celebrated the assassination, resulting in his termination. A department chair at the University of Alabama in Huntsville wrote, "When someone says Charlie Kirk was a good Christian man, what they're really saying is that Christianity and White Supremacy are the same thing." Meanwhile, a Montgomery teacher reportedly said, "I hope he suffered," and a University of Alabama journalism professor described the assassination as "Right on right crime," questioning the significance of the event and its media coverage. These posts sparked outrage among parents, lawmakers, and the media, prompting Alabama State Superintendent Dr. Eric Mackey to warn local school leaders that such posts could violate the Alabama Administrative Code and the Educator Code of Ethics.
Yet the ACLU of Alabama pushed back hard against calls for disciplinary action. "To protect that same free exchange, the ACLU of Alabama also condemns the targeted harassment of teachers, professors, and other public servants for political statements that they publish in their personal capacity. Our state cannot and should not respond to violence by infringing upon the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," the group asserted. The organization pointed to legal precedents, including a 2011 California case, San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. v. Comm’n on Prof’l Competence, which upheld a school’s right to dismiss a teacher for online conduct only if it adversely affected school functions. The ACLU concluded, "Core political speech is worth defending, even when it is controversial, and the ACLU of Alabama remains steadfast in its 60-year commitment to defending free speech in our state."
Meanwhile, in Connecticut, the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut is taking its own stand in federal court. On September 16, 2025, the organization filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Transportation (DOT) and State Police, seeking to halt what it calls the "ongoing suppression of speech" on highway overpasses. According to CT News Junkie, the lawsuit alleges that police have repeatedly ordered protesters to leave overpasses, issued tickets, and even made arrests, all because of protest signs displayed above Interstate 95 in the Greater New Haven area. The lawsuit names DOT Commissioner Garrett Eucalitto and Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Commissioner Ronnell Higgins as defendants.
Dan Barrett, legal director of the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut, argued in a news release, "Public sidewalks are the most protected places we have for free speech. For about eighty years, the law has been clear that speakers cannot be punished for the reactions of listeners." Barrett also pointed out the state’s inconsistency: "If you’ve driven our interstates, you know how ridiculous it is for the state to permit massive electronic billboards along the highway while claiming that overpass pedestrians cannot display small, homemade signs." Plaintiffs Erin Quinn and Robert Marra, who have temporarily halted their protests for fear of arrest, say their constitutional rights are being trampled. "No one should fear arrest for exercising their First Amendment rights," Marra said.
State officials, however, cite safety as their top concern. In an August letter to lawmakers, Commissioner Higgins wrote that state law "prohibits attaching unauthorized signs on state highways, bridges, and overpasses, prohibits individuals from intentionally or recklessly obstructing traffic on the roadways, and prohibits the intentional blocking of public sidewalks." Higgins insisted, "I reject any assertion that Troopers are unfairly targeting certain overpass protestors based upon any perceived political or social affiliations." A DOT spokesperson clarified that while permits are not required for individuals congregating on pedestrian areas adjacent to roadways, enforcement is left to law enforcement officers. The Office of the Attorney General is representing the state in the litigation.
Out West, the ACLU of Southern California is challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) over its social media policy for parents. LAist reports that the policy, adopted in 2018, prohibits "inappropriate threatening, harassing, racist, biased, derogatory, disparaging or bullying comments toward or about any student, employee or associated person on any website." The district’s definition of "associated persons" notably includes parents and school volunteers. The ACLU argues that this policy infringes on parents’ First Amendment rights, especially after a recent incident at Venice’s Broadway Elementary School. In mid-August 2025, an LAUSD administrator sent a message to families listing "prohibited behaviors" such as making "defamatory, offensive or derogatory comments regarding the school, school staff or parents/guardians made publicly to others," and warned that repeat violations could result in bans from campus—with limited exceptions.
Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel at the ACLU of Southern California, minced no words: "The government has no right to tell parents that they can't criticize school officials [or] schools. It's kind of outrageous. The government has to accept criticism and a parent who thinks that the school is doing a bad job of educating their child is free to say exactly that on social media ... or any other place." Legal experts cited by LAist, including David Snyder of the First Amendment Coalition, agreed: "It's fairly flatly, unconstitutional to say that a parent or a volunteer cannot post—‘threatening, harassing, racist, biased, derogatory, disparaging comments’ on social media." LAUSD responded that no one had been disciplined under the policy since the ACLU’s letter, and on September 15, 2025, Broadway Elementary removed the offending language from its communications, while still urging parents to help create a positive school climate.
The ACLU’s arguments across these states rest on the same constitutional bedrock: the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, especially when it comes to criticism of government and public officials. Yet, as these cases show, the practical boundaries of that protection are hotly contested. School districts and law enforcement agencies argue that safety, order, and civility sometimes require limits—whether to prevent classroom disruption, protect motorists, or foster a supportive school environment. The ACLU and its allies counter that such justifications too often become a pretext for suppressing dissent and stifling debate.
As these legal battles unfold, they are forcing communities, courts, and policymakers to grapple with difficult questions: Where does free speech end and harassment begin? When does public safety justify curtailing protest? And how much criticism must government institutions be prepared to tolerate from those they serve? The answers, it seems, will shape the contours of American democracy for years to come.
