VICTORY: Hawaii Backs Down Completely From Punishing Teacher for Allowing Kirk and Trump Discussion on Constitution Day After ACLJ Legal Action

Just weeks ago, we told you about a shocking case of government overreach in Hawaii, where school officials disciplined a history teacher for allowing her students to briefly discuss Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the attempted assassination of President Trump during a Constitution Day lesson on the First Amendment.

Today, we’re thrilled to report that Hawaii’s Department of Education has done the right thing. They’ve given us everything we demanded and fully corrected the situation – and they did it without a fight.

School Chose Censorship Over Constitutional Education

This all began when our client, an 8th-grade history teacher, taught a federally mandated lesson about the Constitution for Constitution Day. The class discussion turned to free speech. Students brought up the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk as well as other prominent political assassinations, including the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the attempted assassination of President Trump.

One student snidely commented that assassinating the President wouldn’t have been that bad. The teacher correctly instructed the students that no one should be killed for their political beliefs or speech, and the conversation proceeded without incident.

Yet a parent of a student who wasn’t even in the class that day complained. As we noted previously, “[S]chool administrators chose censorship over constitutional education. They placed a disciplinary memo in her file threatening future sanctions and told her she must immediately ‘shut down’ any spontaneous student discussions on undefined ‘controversial issues.’”

In response, the ACLJ sent a demand letter to the school outlining the egregious violation of not only this teacher’s rights but the constitutional rights of each student she was being told to silence. Thankfully, the Hawaii Department of Education responded, rectifying the situation.

On November 6, Hawaii Education Superintendent Keith Hayashi, the top education official in Hawaii, sent us a response that corrected what had been done. We commend Hawaii’s leadership for its swift action. Here’s what he confirmed:

The disciplinary memo has been withdrawn. It’s not just removed – it’s gone from our client’s personnel file entirely, as if it never existed. Our client, Heather Strait, has been fully vindicated in her conduct.

No adverse employment action has been or will be taken. The superintendent explicitly stated that no action “has been taken, or would have been taken against Ms. Strait based on the September 17, 2025 classroom discussions.”

No defense. No excuses. No conditions. The response was barely more than a paragraph. The Department of Education didn’t try to justify its actions. It didn’t argue about the constitutional issues we raised. It didn’t offer qualifications or conditions. It simply backed down.

This is what doing the right thing looks like, and we commend Hawaii’s Department of Education for its swift action.

Take action with us as we continue defending free speech. Add your name to the petition: Defend Free Speech NOW.

Why This Correction Was Necessary

Hawaii’s willingness to promptly address this situation reflects that the school’s position was constitutionally indefensible on every level.

Remember, school officials couldn’t even identify the policy they claimed our client violated. When she challenged them in a meeting and asked them to show her where any written rule required her to silence spontaneous student speech, they searched for it. They couldn’t find it because it doesn’t exist.

They were enforcing a phantom policy based on undefined terms like “controversial issues” – a standard so vague that our client’s colleagues correctly observed “everything in history is controversial.” The Supreme Court has made clear for decades that vague restrictions on speech violate the First Amendment, especially when they create the kind of massive chilling effect we saw here.

To its credit, Hawaii’s Department of Education understood immediately that it had no legal leg to stand on, recognized these concerns, and acted accordingly. In fact, its letter completely reversed course from what our client had been told: “Both the policy and regulation allow for classroom discussions of matters which generate opposing viewpoints and are not intended to suppress spontaneous student discussion during approved lesson plans.”

What This Victory Means for America

This victory puts every school district on notice: Policies giving administrators standardless discretion to suppress speech violate the First Amendment. You cannot enforce undefined terms that force teachers to guess what’s permitted based on which parent complains that day.

As our client said, “I am so grateful for ACLJ and encouraged that liberty might have a chance in Hawaii!”

This victory wouldn’t exist without our client’s extraordinary courage. She could have accepted the disciplinary memo and moved on, teaching sanitized constitutional law. Instead, she challenged the administration’s unconstitutional directive, documented its inability to identify the policy she violated, and contacted the ACLJ. And of course, we would not be here to help if not for our incredible supporters who make wins like this possible.

Take action with us as we continue defending free speech. Add your name to the petition: Defend Free Speech NOW.