Can’t Ban Parent from School Property for “Mean and Demeaning Posts” About “Opposing Student Athletes”

From Jones v. Jenkins Indep. School Dist., decided Thursday by Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove (E.D. Ky.):

A public school in Eastern Kentucky issued a series of no trespass bans to Elizabeth Jones, a parent, in response to some of her posts on Facebook. As explained below, these posts were mean and demeaning. Naturally, several parents complained to the school district. The school district responded by banning Jones from all district property….

The First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions for engaging in protected speech, and this speech is protected. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Jones’s motion for a preliminary injunction….

Plaintiff Elizabeth Jones … is a single mother of two minor children who attend school in the Jenkins Independent School District. She regularly attends school-sponsored activities, including athletics events, and donated her time and money to support her children’s extracurricular activities.

Jones is also the owner and CEO of Hillbilly Crime, LLC. According to Hillbilly Crime’s YouTube profile, Jones is a “Mom and self-proclaimed ‘Educated Hillbilly'” who discusses “anything & everything True Crime, follow[s] local criminal trials, and give[s] my personal and best ‘Hillbilly’ commentary on important issues and current events.” Jones monetizes her content through this YouTube channel with over 26,000 subscribers and also through two Facebook pages with over 26,000 followers and 38,000 followers, respectively. In addition to her videos and posts, Jones operates an online store featuring Hillbilly Crime merchandise and also offers supporters the ability to purchase subscription tiers ranging from $2.99 to $24.99 a month to support her reporting.

Jones is a prolific user of Facebook, publishing multiple posts per day on both her “Elizabeth Jones” and “Hillbilly Crime” accounts. The accounts largely overlap in terms of content. When Jones posts on her “Elizabeth Jones” account, she often leaves a comment encouraging her supporters to subscribe and support her work with links to purchase the tiered subscription options. In addition to posting about local crime, Jones also posts about school athletics from her main account.

The Defendants allege that Jones relies on controversy to drive engagement with her channels. On November 26, 2025, Jones posted a comment where she poked fun at a middle school child’s appearance and accused an opposing basketball coach of making derogatory gestures to fans and parents. She then responded aggressively to another Facebook user who defended the child.

On December 13, 2025, she made another post criticizing a child’s effort in a basketball game and encouraged others to comment on her post. Both posts contained photographs of the minor children at issue, although the parties’ attachments did not include the photos as part of their exhibits submitted to the Court. Jones does not contest that the posts contained photographs, so the Court assumes that the posts in fact included photos of the minor children.

The school district claims they received numerous complaints from parents concerned about Jones’s online activity. Defendant Damian Johnson, the school district’s superintendent, then issued a “No Trespass Order” on December 15, 2025. This order read as follows:

Due to your multiple posts on social media of students participating in extracurricular activities which appear to be harassment and which have caused disruptions of the educational process in this school district, you are banned from any and all properties owned or leased by this school district and banned from any and all activities sponsored for or by this school district.

It is of utmost importance to provide for the safety and well-being of our students, our fans, our visitors and those who use the school district facilities and attend school district activities.

If you are present on any property owned or leased by this school district or present at activity [sic] sponsored by or for this school district, the school district will have you removed by law enforcement and then the school district will seek criminal trespass charges against you.

Jones received no warning before the district issued the No Trespass Order…… The Defendants, after appearing in this lawsuit, then issued a Modified No Trespass Order to Jones on February 5, 2026. The Modified Order carved out exceptions to its December order, permitting Jones to drop off and pick up her children from school, deliver items to them at school, attend scheduled parent-teacher conferences, and attend other scheduled meetings with educators relating to her children. The modified order also clarified that the ban did not apply to meetings of the school board …. Like the first order, this modified order did not specify with any particularity which social media posts led to the ban and did not list any way that Jones could challenge it……

The court held that the orders were likely unconstitutional:

Parents do not enjoy an unfettered right to access public school property[,] … [but] a state actor cannot retaliate against an individual for speech that the state disfavors… [A Sixth Circuit precedent has held] that the “disruption standard applicable to student speech” does not normally apply to the speech of parents. Unless a parent’s speech falls into one of the historic and traditional categories permitting content-based restrictions, including speech expressed as part of a crime, obscene expression, incitement, or fraud, then schools cannot regulate the content of that speech.

Jones’ posts clearly do not reach this level. She posted arguably distasteful commentary about opposing student athletes, but none of it falls within the “limited areas” where the state can regulate speech. It is true that her social media posts “offend[ed] the sensibilities of others,” including other parents. But offensive speech still enjoys First Amendment protection, and the school district cannot sanction the content of Jones’ speech merely because they find it unsettling, distasteful, or inappropriate…

Jones alleges that the Defendants retaliated against her in violation of the First Amendment. There are three elements to a retaliation claim:

(1) the plaintiff was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity;

(2) the defendant’s adverse action caused the plaintiff to suffer an injury that would likely chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity; and

(3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part as a response to the exercise of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

As to the first element, Jones engaged in a constitutionally protected activity.

In weighing the second element, the Court notes that the test is an objective one, and it does not matter whether Jones herself was actually deterred by the district’s retaliation… [A] blanket ban against a parent in reaction to posting on social media constitutes a negative consequence beyond the de minimis level and would likely chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from posting in the future. All parents want to be involved in their children’s lives, and particularly in their extracurricular activities at school. A ban such as this—unlimited in time and with no listed appeal procedures—certainly would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to exercise their speech rights, particularly where the alternative is total isolation from their children’s activities.

The third factor asks whether the adverse action was motivated at least in part as a response to the exercise of Jones’ constitutional rights. A “motivating factor … is one without which the action being challenged simply would not have been taken.” Here, there is no question that the Defendants instituted the ban as a direct result of Jones’ posts. They say so themselves: “The No Trespass Order here was issued due to concerns with Ms. Jones’s social media activity and resulting disruption of school operations[.]” …

School districts enjoy latitude in controlling access to their physical facilities. But as state actors, they cannot retaliate against a parent on the basis of that parent’s social media posts which are not threatening, obscene, or defamatory…

Jennifer L. Taylor, as well as William Ellis Sharp, Bethany Nicole Baxter, and Corey M. Shapiro (the last three from the ACLU of Kentucky) represent plaintiff.