By late September, the New York Times had identified “more than 145” instances of people being “fired, suspended, reassigned or pushed to resign . . . for things they said about [Charlie Kirk’s] assassination.” NBC News asserted that such actions stemmed from “a campaign propelled by conservative influencers and Republican lawmakers who urged schools and other employers to fire people who they say made light of or celebrated Kirk’s death.” Indeed, while guest hosting The Charlie Kirk Show, Vice President JD Vance instructed listeners “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. Call their employer.”
The story of Phillip Michael Hook, a tenured art professor at the University of South Dakota (USD), fits snugly within this fire-Kirk-haters framework. More importantly, his successful lawsuit against USD illustrates key principles about public employees’ First Amendment speech rights and the need for cooler employer-heads to prevail when confronted with offensive online posts about matters of public concern.
Offending Post. There’s nothing polite about a post Hook made “while at home and off work” on his private Facebook account on September 10, 2025 (the day Kirk was assassinated):
Okay. I don’t give a flying f*** about this Kirk person. Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was. I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. . . . But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi. A shrug, maybe.
About three hours later, Hook deleted it, replacing it with a new message stating, “I’m sure many folks fully understood my premise but the simple fact that some were offended, led me to remove the post. I extend this public apology to those who were offended.”
Political Reaction. Hook’s apology didn’t placate Republican leaders in the Mount Rushmore State. Speaker of the House Jon Hansen, who’s running for governor in 2026, posted on September 12 that “after seeing [Hook’s initial] post, I immediately reached out to USD President Sheila Gestring and called on the professor to be fired. I understand that the professor is likely to be terminated from his position.” That day, Governor Larry Rhoden said he was “shaking mad,” adding that “The Board of Regents intends to FIRE this . . . professor, and I’m glad.” Hansen and Rhoden shared screenshots of Hook’s original post.
University Response. Around this time, Hook received a letter from the dean of USD’s College of Fine Arts expressing the “intent to terminate [Hook’s] contract as Professor” for violating a policy targeting “misconduct, incompetence, abuse of power or other actions that manifest an unfitness to discharge the trust reposed in public university faculty members.” The letter explained that evidence of Hook’s violation consisted of his Facebook post. He was placed “on administrative leave until a final decision on the intent to terminate his position was determined.”
Hook’s Lawsuit. Hook sued, claiming USD officials unconstitutionally retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to engage in “core, classical, quintessential political speech.” To prevail on First Amendment retaliation claims, plaintiffs must prove: (1) they engaged in protected expression; (2) they suffered an adverse consequence; and (3) their exercise of protected expression was a substantial or motivating factor in suffering the adverse consequence (here, placement on administrative leave and initiation of job-termination proceedings). The key question in Hook v. Rave was the initial one: Was Hook engaged in protected speech when he made the “hate spreading Nazi” post?
Court Ruling. Federal District Judge Karen Schreier ruled for Hook. Applying the public-employee speech doctrine, she determined Hook’s post was safeguarded by the First Amendment because: (1) he posted it in a private-citizen capacity (on his own time and while at home), not pursuant to official job duties; and (2) it dealt with a matter of public concern. Regarding the latter issue, she reasoned the post “discussed the murder of a public figure . . . and went on to question the difference in reactions between the murder of Kirk and other recent public murders and shootings.” Finally, Schreier concluded that USD produced no evidence that Hook’s post disrupted “on-campus activities, Hook’s teaching lessons, or the University’s operations.” Allowing his termination based solely on the “hundreds of calls and messages” that USD received complaining about Hook’s post or calling for his firing would constitute an unconstitutional “heckler’s veto,” Schreier wrote.
Shortly afterward, USD “abandoned [its] notice of intention to terminate Professor Hook” and “returned [him] to his full duties.” With Hook winning the relief he sought, Schreier dismissed the case. Ultimately, fervent outrage and calling government employers don’t always eclipse free speech rights.