ACLJ in Federal Court Filing Two Crucial Briefs Defending Parent Who Exposed Anti-Israel Teacher’s Bigoted Statements

The ACLJ has filed two new legal briefs in federal court, defending the First Amendment rights of a parent against those who would use the courts to wage lawfare against supporters of Israel. We have submitted legal briefs (here & here) defending Michelle Bernstein, who was wrongfully sued for defamation for expressing her opinions about the potentially antisemitic conduct of a teacher at an Illinois high school.

This is a critical case for two very important reasons. First, parents must not fear absurd lawsuits aimed at silencing them from expressing their concern about how school teachers are indoctrinating their children. It is paramount that parents’ rights be protected to stand up for their children in school. Second, this case illustrates the expansive lawfare being waged against Israel, the Jewish people, and anyone who supports them by enemies who seek to silence, delegitimize, and even eviscerate the Jewish state.

Our briefs argue that the plaintiff, a teacher, is attempting to silence protected speech by suing over Bernstein’s expression of opinions about antisemitism. As we told you when we took the case:

A public employee, a theater director at a high school in Illinois, posted a story on her personal Instagram account that accused the Israeli military of “crimes against humanity” and “ethnic cleansing.” Our client Michelle Bernstein, a parent of students in the school, learned about the post, made several social media comments that highlighted what this theater director said, and shared her opinion that these statements were “slandering the IDF and Israel” and “antisemitic.” In other words, Bernstein learned about this teacher’s post, which was circulating the social media of the high school community and was disseminated to many students, and viewed the teacher’s statements to be antisemitic, slanderous of Israel, and inappropriate for a public employee who is shaping the young minds of students. Accordingly, she called the teacher out on social media, expressing her opinion and exposing the public school teacher’s disturbing comments.

Our arguments have highlighted a core constitutional principle. Opinions are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be used as a tool for retaliatory lawsuits. This case represents a crucial battle for parental rights and religious liberty. The ACLJ is committed to defending Mrs. Bernstein’s constitutional right to speak out against antisemitism in public schools and protecting citizens’ ability to engage in public debate on important issues without fear of retaliatory litigation.

For someone to be liable for defamation, the statement they made must be provably false. Courts have emphasized again and again that opinions are not verifiable in the courts and, therefore, cannot be the basis of liability. For example, our client referred to this teacher’s post as “antisemitic.” Whether someone’s statement is antisemitic is not something that can be proved or disproved; it is an opinion. And in our free society, the answer to opinions is more speech, not retaliatory lawsuits.

Our motion to dismiss highlighted many cases emphasizing these principles to reject lawsuits over terms like “antisemitic.” We have now submitted a reply briefin support of that motion to dismiss, in which we pointed out a new decision, decided just last month, that reached the same conclusion, Druskinis v. Stop Antisemitism. As the court in Druskinis explained, “[L]abeling Druskinis’s conduct as antisemitic is a protected opinion because such a claim is not ‘provable as false.’ Whatever biases or prejudices Druskinis may hold in his heart are not verifiable by the Court—or anyone else, for that matter.” (Emphasis added.) That core principle is the principle we are applying to this case.

The ACLJ remains committed to defending free speech rights and preventing the misuse of defamation law to silence public debate about important issues. We will continue fighting to ensure that Americans maintain their constitutional right to express opinions on controversial topics without fear of lawsuits designed to silence them. With the submission of this brief, we are now awaiting the court’s decision on our motion to dismiss.

In the meantime, while the judge is considering our motion to dismiss in this case, the discovery process has already begun. Discovery is the process of how the parties exchange information and ask questions of one another. It can often be lengthy and difficult for people to go through. Therefore, we filed a motion asking the court to pause discovery proceedings against our client until her pending motion to dismiss is resolved.

The motion argues that proceeding with discovery before resolving the motion to dismiss would create unnecessary burdens and costs, particularly since:

• The motion to dismiss could entirely resolve the case against Mrs. Bernstein;
• The legal questions at issue focus on protected speech and opinion;
• Mrs. Bernstein now resides outside of Indiana, making discovery logistically challenging.

In our motion, we have highlighted strong legal precedent supporting stays of discovery in similar circumstances. A stay of discovery is something a judge has the discretion to decide, but we have urged the court to avoid unnecessary discovery and defer it until after the ruling on whether the case should be dismissed.

The ACLJ legal team continues to advocate for the protection of fundamental constitutional rights while working to prevent unnecessary legal burdens on our client. While we wait for a decision on our request for a stay, we will continue to defend our client in these discovery disputes.