Trump’s use of FBI to target ‘enemies’ echoes FBI’s dark history of mass surveillance, dirty tricks and perversion of justice under J. Edgar Hoover

As a candidate last year, Donald Trump promised retribution against his perceived enemies. As president, he is doing that.

At the Department of Justice, a “Weaponization Working Group” has a long list of Trump’s perceived enemies to investigate. At the FBI, director Kash Patel has conducted a political purge, firing the highest officials at the bureau and thousands of FBI agents who investigated alleged crimes by Trump as well as investigated participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riots.

It marks the first time since J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year reign as FBI director that the FBI has targeted massive numbers of people perceived to be political enemies.

Trump’s recent fury showed how much he expects top officials in federal law enforcement to carry out his retribution.

He was enraged when Erik S. Siebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, decided there was insufficient evidence to charge two people Trump regards as enemies: former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

I want him out,” Trump angrily told reporters on Sept. 19, 2025. Siebert resigned, although Trump claimed he had fired him.

Trump’s most recent demands for retribution came soon after top adviser Stephen Miller’s vow to prosecute leftists in the “vast domestic terror movement” – that the administration blames, without evidence, for Charlie Kirk’s assassination – using “every resource we have.”

As the director of the FBI, Patel will likely be in charge of the investigations of perceived enemies generated by the Department of Justice and the White House. He already has sacrificed the bureau’s independence, making it essentially an arm of the White House.

This isn’t the first time an FBI director has been driven by a desire to suppress the rights of people perceived to be political enemies. Hoover, director until his death in 1972, operated a secret FBI within the FBI that he used to destroy people and organizations whose political opinions he opposed.

A man with a beard and glasses and dark hair standing and appearing to almost be praying.
FBI Director Kash Patel reacts to Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025. AP Photo/Ben Curtis

A burglary’s revelations

Hoover’s secret FBI was revealed, beginning in 1971, when a group of people called the Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into an FBI office and removed files.

This group suspected Hoover’s FBI was illegally suppressing dissent. Given Hoover’s enormous power, they thought it was unlikely any government agency would investigate the FBI. They decided documentary evidence was needed to convince the public that suppression of dissent – what they considered a crime against democracy – was taking place.

A blue historical marker on a pole outside of a building, that commemorates 'FBI OFFICE BURGLARY.'
A historical marker commemorates the site of the burglary that exposed COINTELPRO. Betty Medsger

In my book “The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret FBI,” I describe how these eight people decided to risk imprisonment and break into the FBI’s office in Media, Pennsylvania.

The files they stole and made public confirmed the FBI was suppressing dissent. But they revealed much more: Hoover’s secret FBI and the startling crimes he had committed. These secret operations had become so extensive that they eventually diminished the bureau’s capacity to carry out its core mission: law enforcement.

Hoover, one of the most admired and powerful officials in the country, had secretly conducted a wide array of operations directed against people whose political opinions he opposed.

The files revealed that agents were instructed to “enhance paranoia” and make activists think there was an FBI agent “behind every mailbox.” Questioning Vietnam war policy could cause anyone, even a U.S. senator, Democrat J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, to be placed under FBI surveillance.

It was the revelation of Hoover’s worst operations, COINTELPRO – what Hoover called The Counter Intelligence Program – that made Americans demand investigation and reform of the FBI. Until the mid-1970s, there had never been oversight of the FBI and little coverage of the FBI by journalists, except for laudatory stories.A video chronicle about the 1971 break-in at an FBI office in Media, Pa., that uncovered vast FBI abuses.

‘Almost beyond belief’

The COINTELPRO operations ranged from crude to cruel to murderous.

Antiwar activists were given oranges injected with powerful laxatives. Agents hired prostitutes known to have venereal disease to infect campus antiwar leaders.

Many of the COINTELPRO operations were almost beyond belief:

· The project conducted against the entire University of California system lasted more than 30 years. Hundreds of agents and informants were assigned in 1960 to spy on each of Berkeley’s 5,365 faculty members by reading their mail, observing them and searching for derogatory information – “illicit love affairs, homosexuality, sexual perversion, excessive drinking, other instances of conduct reflecting mental instability.”

· An informant trained to give perjured testimony led to the murder conviction of Black Panther Geronimo Pratt, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He served 27 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. He was exonerated in 1997 when a judge found that the FBI concealed evidence that would have proved Pratt’s innocence.

· The bureau spied for years on Martin Luther King Jr. After it was announced King would receive the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, Hoover approved a particularly sinister plan that was designed to cause King to commit suicide.

A letter to 'KING' urging him to commit suicide, calling him 'filthy, abnormal, fraudulent.'
A letter sent anonymously by the FBI to Martin Luther King Jr. in 1964 urging him to commit suicide. Wikipedia

· What one historian called Hoover’s “savage hatred” of Black people led to the FBI’s worst operation, a collaboration with the Chicago police that resulted in the killing of Chicago Black Panther Fred Hampton, shot dead by police as he slept. An FBI informant had been hired to ingratiate himself with Hampton. He came to know Hampton and the apartment very well. He drew a map of the apartment for the police on which he located “Fred’s bed.” After the killing, Hoover thanked the informant for his role in this successful operation. Enclosed in his letter was a cash bonus.

· Actress Jean Seberg was the victim of a 1970 COINTELPRO operation. In a memo, Hoover wrote that she had donated to the Panthers and “should be neutralized.” Seberg was pregnant, and the plot, approved personally by Hoover – as many COINTELPRO plots were – called for the FBI to tell a gossip columnist that a Black Panther was the father. Agents gave the false rumor to a Los Angeles Times gossip columnist. Without using Seberg’s name, the columnist’s story made it unmistakable that she was writing about Seberg. Three days later, Seberg gave birth prematurely to a stillborn white baby girl. Every year on the anniversary of her dead baby’s birth, Seberg attempted suicide. She succeeded in August 1979.

There was wide public interest in these revelations about COINTELPRO, many of which emerged in 1975 during hearings conducted by the Church Committee, the Senate committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat.

At this first-ever congressional investigation of the FBI and other intelligence agencies, former FBI officials testified under oath about bureau policies under Hoover.

One of them, William Sullivan, who had helped carry out the plots against King, was asked whether officials considered the legal and ethical issues involved in their operations. He responded:

“Never once did I hear anybody, including myself, raise the questions: ‘Is this course of action which we have agreed upon lawful? Is it legal? Is it ethical or moral?’ We never gave any thought to that line of questioning because we were just pragmatic. The one thing we were concerned about: will this course of action work, will it get us what we want.”

Ethical? Legal?

The future of the new FBI under Patel and Trump is unclear, especially in light of the president’s known tolerance for lawlessness, even violence. His gifts of clemency and pardons to Jan. 6 rioters are evidence of that.

As for Patel, fired FBI Officials stated in their recent lawsuit over those dismissals that Patel had told one of them it was “likely illegal” to fire agents because of the cases they had worked on, but that he was powerless to resist Trump’s demands.

The recent statements from both Trump and top aide Miller suggest the FBI’s independence, and broader constitutional requirements that the administration remain faithful to the law, are meaningless to them. They suggest that, like Hoover, they would criminalize dissent.

What will happen at the FBI after the internal purge ends? Will retribution fever wane? Will Patel refocus on the bureau’s chief mission, law enforcement? And will the questions asked in Congress in 1975, as the bureau was being forced to reject Hoover’s worst practices, be asked now: Is what we are doing ethical? Is it legal?

A Surgical Team Was About To Harvest This Man’s Organs — Until His Doctor Intervened

By Cara Anthony, KFF Health News

“Get him off the table,” the doctor recalled telling the surgical team at SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital as the team cleaned Black’s chest and abdomen. “This is my patient. Get him off the table.”

At first, no one recognized Zohny Zohny in his surgical mask. Then he told the surgical team he was the neurosurgeon assigned to Black’s case. Stunned by his orders, the team members pushed back, Zohny said, explaining that they had consent from the family to remove Black’s organs.  

“I don’t care if we have consent,” Zohny recalled telling them. “I haven’t spoken to the family, and I don’t agree with this. Get him off the table.”

Black, his 22-year-old patient, had arrived at the hospital after getting shot in the head on March 24, 2019. A week later, he was taken to surgery to have his organs removed for donation — even though his heart was beating and he hadn’t been declared brain-dead, Zohny said.

Black’s sister Molly Watts said the family had doubts after agreeing to donate Black’s organs but felt unheard until the 34-year-old doctor, in his first year as a neurosurgeon, intervened.

Today, Black, now 28, is a musician and the father of three children. He still needs regular physical therapy for lingering health issues from the gun injury. And Black said he is haunted by what he remembers from those days while he was lying in a medically induced coma.

“I heard my mama yelling,” he recalled. “Everybody was there yelling my name, crying, playing my favorite songs, sending prayers up.”

He said he had tried to show everyone in his hospital room that he heard them. He recalled knocking on the side of the bed, blinking his eyes, trying to show that he was fighting for his life.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free weekly newsletter, “The Week in Brief.” Your Email Address

Organ transplants save a growing number of lives in the U.S. every year, with more than 48,000 transplants performed in 2024, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which oversees the nation’s transplant system. And thousands die awaiting donations that never come.

But organ donation has also faced ongoing criticism, including reports of patients showing alertness before planned organ harvesting. The results of a federal investigation into a Kentucky organ donation nonprofit, first disclosed by The New York Times in June, found that during a four-year period, medical providers had planned to harvest the organs of 73 patients despite signs of neurological activity. Those procedures ultimately didn’t take place, but federal officials vowed in July to overhaul the nation’s organ donation system.

“Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. “The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor’s life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.”

Even before this latest investigation, Black’s case showed Zohny that the organ donation system needed to improve. He was initially hesitant to talk to KFF Health News when contacted in July about Black. But Zohny said his patient’s story had stuck with him for years, highlighting that while organ donation must continue, little is understood about human consciousness. And determining when someone is dead is the critical but confusing question at play.

“There was no bad guy in this. It was a bad setup. There’s a problem in the system,” he said. “We need to look at the policies and make some adjustments to them to make sure that we’re doing organ donation for the right person at the right time in the right place, with the right specialists involved.”

LJ Punch, a former trauma surgeon who was not involved with the case but reviewed Black’s medical records for KFF Health News, questioned whether Black’s injury — from gunfire — possibly contributed to how he was treated. Young Black men like Larry Black are disproportionately victims of gun trauma in the United States, and research on such violence is scant. His experience exemplifies “the general neglect” of Black men’s bodies, Punch said.

“That’s what comes up for me,” Punch said. “Structurally, not individually. Not any one doctor, not any one nurse, not any one team. It’s a structural reality.”

The hospital declined to comment on the details of Black’s case. SSM Health’s Kim Henrichsen, president of Saint Louis University Hospital and St. Mary’s Hospital-St. Louis, said the hospital system approaches “all situations involving critical illness or end-of-life care with deep compassion and respect.”

Mid-America Transplant, the federally designated organ procurement organization serving the St. Louis region, does not comment on individual donor cases, according to Lindsey Speir, executive vice president for organ procurement. She did tell KFF Health News that her organization has walked away from cases when patients’ conditions change — though not as late as when they are in the operating room for harvesting.

“Let me be clear about that. It happens way before then,” she said. “It definitely happens multiple times a year where we get consent. The family has made the decision, we approach, we get consent, it’s all appropriate, and then a day or so later they improve and we’re like, ‘Whoa.’”

But Speir said the recent media stories about the nation’s donation system are prompting a lot of questions about a process that also does a lot of good.

“We’re losing public trust right now,” Speir said of the industry. “And we’re going to have to regain that.”

Blink Twice for a Chance at Life

Larry Black Jr. and his sister Molly Watts are still trying to process everything that happened to him while he was hospitalized in 2019 at SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital.

It was a Sunday afternoon when gunshots rang out in downtown St. Louis. Black had been on his way to his sister’s apartment.

“I didn’t know I was shot at first,” Black said, sitting in his living room six years later. “I literally ran like a block or two away.”

He collapsed moments later, he said, crawling to the back door of a woman’s home, where he asked for help. He said he asked the woman to give him two large towels, one covered in rubbing alcohol and another soaked with hydrogen peroxide. He wrapped those towels around the back of his head.

When his sister Macquel Payne found him, he was lying on the ground near the leasing office of her apartment complex, a crowd gathered around him.

Before an ambulance took him to the hospital, Black told his sister not to worry about him.

“I’m hearing Larry say, ‘I’m good, sis,’” Payne recalled. “‘I’m OK.’”

Black said he went in and out of consciousness on the way to the hospital and once he was there.

“I got to hitting my hand on the side of the ICU bed,” Black said. “They was like: ‘That’s just the reaction, the side effects of the medicine. Ask him some questions.’”

Payne said she asked her brother to blink twice if he could remember his first pet, a dog named “Little Black” that looked like the Chihuahua from the Taco Bell commercials.

Black said he remembers blinking twice. His sisters remember the same.

Payne asked him another question. This time she wanted to know whether her brother recognized their family. Black said he blinked twice when he saw his mom and sister standing nearby.  

Black said his sister then asked him “the main question” that everyone needed him to answer.

“She’s like, ‘If you want them to pull a plug, if you tired and you giving up, blink once,’” Black recalled. “‘If you still got some fight in you, blink more than once.’”

Black said he started blinking and hit the bed to let his family know that he was still with them.

The sisters said hospital staffers told them the movements were involuntary.

‘Not Right Now’

In a waiting room steps away from the hospital’s intensive care unit, a woman carrying brochures explained to Payne and the rest of the family that Black had identified himself as a possible organ donor on his ID.

The woman wanted to know whether the family wished to move forward with the process if Black died, Payne said.

“I remember my mom saying, ‘Not right now,’” Black’s sister recalled. “‘It’s kind of too soon.’”

Payne said the woman persisted.

“She was like, ‘Well, can I at least leave you some brochures or something?’” Payne recalled. “Then my mom got a little agitated because it felt like she was being, like, pushy.”

The family was already acquainted with the organ donation process. In 2007, Black’s teenage brother Miguel Payne drowned at a local lake. His organs were donated, Macquel Payne said, noting the family was told that his body parts and tissues helped multiple people.

“I believe in saving lives,” Payne said. “But don’t be pushy about it.”

Zohny Zohny recently started a medical research company called Zeta Analytica to explore ways of quantifying consciousness, inspired in part by his experience with Larry Black Jr. in 2019. He also will be joining the West Virginia University Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute in October. 

Mid-America Transplant handles the organ transplant process for 84 counties in parts of Illinois, Arkansas, and Missouri, including St. Louis. Like the Kentucky organization, it is one of 55 federally designated nonprofits that facilitate organ donations throughout the country.

The nonprofit has never pressured a family into organ donation, Speir said. Registering to be an organ donor is legally binding, she said, but Mid-America has walked away from cases when families didn’t want to move forward.

She said her staff tries to dispel myths about organ donation and alleviate concerns. “We want to have the families leave with a positive experience,” Speir said.

Despite the family’s initial ambivalence, they ultimately consented to moving forward with donating Black’s organs. Watts said members of her brother’s care team had told the family that her brother was at “the end of the road.”

The family was told to prepare for Black’s “last walk of life,” Payne said. Also known as an honor or hero’s walk, the tradition honors the life of an organ donor before the harvesting process begins.

At the time, Payne said, she thought her brother still had a fighting chance. She asked the hospital staffers to take another look at him before he was wheeled down the hall.

“I’m like, ‘My brother’s in there tapping on the bed,’” Payne said. “They said, ‘That’s just his nerves.’ But I’m like, ‘No, something’s not right.’ It’s like he was too alert. He was letting us know: ‘Please don’t let them do this to me. I’m here. I can fight this.’ They were saying that’s what the medicine will do, it affects his nerves.”

After the family had agreed to move forward with the organ donation process, the two sisters said, an especially helpful member of Black’s medical team no longer treated them the same way. She became standoffish, they said.

“You could tell the dynamics had changed,” Watts said.

‘#RIPMyBrother’

The family put on blue jumpers for the walk of life. “We just walked around the floor, and everybody was, like, acknowledging him,” Payne said. “We just thought this was the end.”

A friend Black went to high school with filmed part of the ritual. In a short clip, Black is seen being wheeled on a stretcher down a hallway in the hospital. His eyes are half-open. People are crying.

False rumors then started to swirl outside the hospital.

Macquel Payne was among the family members at SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital when her brother Larry Black Jr. was being prepped to have his organs harvested in 2019.

Lawrence Black Sr. says he refused to believe that his son, Larry Black Jr., was dead in 2019 when he heard a rumor that his son’s body was being taken to the SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital morgue. He says he prayed for his son to live. Today, his son is walking, talking, and the father of three children.

Brianna Floyd said she went into shock when she heard that her friend was dead. She knew that Black had been shot in the head. But a few days earlier, a local newspaper had reported that he was in stable condition.

Floyd checked Facebook to see whether the news of his death was true. Her timeline was flooded with farewell posts for Black, so she decided to write one, too.

“I Love You So Much Brother,” Floyd wrote. “#RIPMyBrother. Never Thought I Would Say That.”

Black’s father rushed to the hospital when he heard a rumor that his son was being wheeled to the morgue.

“‘He’s gone,’” Lawrence Black Sr. recalled being told. “‘He’s going to the freezer now.’”

Black Sr. said he refused to believe that his son was dead. The thought was devastating. He had already experienced that kind of loss to gun violence.

“You wake up and nothing’s the same,” Black Sr. said. “The spirit is lingering for about a week, and you can feel it, you know?”

Overwhelmed with emotion, he prayed for his son to live.

‘I Can’t Kill Your Son’

Zohny, the neurosurgeon, said he heard an announcement about a “hero’s walk” over a loudspeaker in the hospital. He wasn’t familiar with the term, so he asked about it. Medical residents in the hospital explained and told Zohny that the walk was possibly for his patient Larry Black.

“No, that can’t be my patient,” Zohny said he told them. “I didn’t agree.”

That’s when Zohny called the ICU to check on Black’s status. A person who answered the phone told him that Black was being wheeled to an operating room, he said.

“This is my first year,” Zohny said. “Your first year out as a neurosurgeon is the riskiest time for you. Any mistakes, anything small, basically derails your career. So the moment this happened, my legs went weak and I was very nervous because, at the end of the day, your job as a doctor is to be perfect.”

KFF Health News, Zohny, and Punch all reviewed the medical files given to Black from his hospitalization. It’s not clear from the records what led to that moment.

“In every case, the patient must be declared legally dead by the hospital’s medical team before organ procurement begins. This is not negotiable,” Mid-America Transplant’s CEO and president, Kevin Lee, wrote in an Aug. 21 blog post on the nonprofit’s website, responding to the news and federal comments about the investigation centered in Kentucky. “Mid-America Transplant strictly follows all laws, regulations, and hospital protocols throughout the process.”

He said in a statement to KFF Health News that a person can be pronounced dead in two ways. A person is legally dead if their heart stops beating and they stop breathing, which is when donation after cardiac death can occur. A person can also become an organ donor if their brain, including the brain stem, has irreversibly ceased functioning, which is when brain death donation can occur.

Zohny Zohny (left), a neurosurgeon, stands with his patient Larry Black Jr. and Black’s sister Molly Watts in a photograph taken at a follow-up medical appointment in 2019. Black was shot in the head in St. Louis earlier that year.

“Every hospital has their own process in declaring both types of death,” Speir said in a statement. “Mid-America Transplant ensures hospitals follow their policies.”

But Black didn’t fall into either category, Zohny said. And, he said, Black hadn’t had what is known as a brain death exam.

Zohny said he immediately informed his chairman about the situation, then started running to the operating room. Black’s family was waiting in the hallway, unaware of the drama happening behind a set of closed silver doors.

Then Zohny emerged, pulling Black’s family into an empty operating room that was nearby.

“I remember he told my mama, ‘I can’t kill your son,’” Payne recalled. “She said, ‘Excuse me?’”

Zohny put an image of Black’s brain on a screen. Then he circled the part of his brain that was damaged. He explained that Black’s gunshot wound was something that he could possibly recover from, though he might need therapy. He asked the family whether they were willing to give Black more time to heal from the injury, instead of withdrawing care.

“In my opinion, no family would ever consent to organ donation unless they were given an impression that their family member had a very poor prognosis,” Zohny said. “I never had a conversation with the family about the prognosis, because it was too early to have that discussion.”

Zohny knew that he was taking a professional risk when he ran into the operating room.

“The worst-case scenario for me is that I lose my job,” he recalled thinking. “Worst-case scenario for him, he wrongfully loses his life.”

Later, Zohny said, a hospital worker who transported Black from the ICU to the operating room told Zohny that something had seemed off.

 “I remember him looking at me and saying, ‘I’m so glad you stopped that,’” Zohny recalled. “And I said, ‘Why?’ And he said: ‘I don’t know. His eyes were open the whole time, and I just felt like he was looking at me. His eyes didn’t move, but it felt like he was looking at me.’”

‘Back From the Dead’

After Zohny’s intervention, Black was wheeled back to the ICU. Zohny said the medical team held back all medications that caused his sedation.

Black woke up two days later, Zohny said, and started speaking. Within a week, the neurosurgeon said, he was standing.

“I had to learn how to walk, how to spell, read,” Black said. “I had to learn my name again, my Social, birthday, everything.”

Zohny continued to care for Black during what remained of his 21 days in the hospital. During a follow-up appointment, he posed for a photo with Black and his older sister, Watts. Next to Zohny, Black is standing up, a brace on his leg.

“It’s a miracle that despite flawed policy we were able to save his life,” Zohny said. “It was an absolute miracle.”

To help Larry Black Jr. process his gunshot injuries and an aborted surgery to harvest his organs in 2019, he makes music under the name BeamNavyLooney. “I am back from the dead,” he recently wrote in a song about his experience.

Zohny, who was working as a fellow and assistant professor at the time, left Saint Louis University Hospital for another job later that year when his fellowship ended. He said Black’s story made him question what we know about consciousness.

He’s now working on a new method that quantifies consciousness. Zohny said it could possibly be used to help measure consciousness from brain signals, such as with an electroencephalogram, or EEG, a test that measures electrical activity in the brain. Zohny said his method still needs rigorous validation, so he recently started a medical research company called Zeta Analytica, separate from his work at the West Virginia University Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, which he’ll begin in October.

“We don’t understand the brain to the level that we should, especially with all of the technology we have now,” Zohny said.

Today, Black is trying to move forward. He said he has seizures if the bullet fragments in his head move around too much. He said he easily overheats because of the injury.

He doesn’t blame his family for their decision. But he questions the organ transplantation process. “It’s like they choose people’s destiny for them just because they have an organ donor ribbon on their ID,” Black said. “And that’s not cool.”

To help him process everything that happened to him in 2019, he makes music under the name BeamNavyLooney. “I am back from the dead,” he recently wrote in a song about his experience.

Earlier this year, Black celebrated the birth of another son, who was sleeping peacefully at home as Black recounted his story.

“He doesn’t really cry,” Black said. “He just makes noises.”

Black sat with a firearm within reach. He said he keeps the gun close to protect his family. It’s still hard for him to sleep at night. Nightmares about what happened — both on the street and in the hospital — keep him awake.

He said he no longer wants to be on the organ donor registry.

Republished with permission under license from KFF Health News.

Legal Research for Non-Lawyers – 3rd Edition Now Available!

We’re excited to announce the release of the 3rd Edition of Legal Research for Non-Lawyers – a major 2025 update designed to make legal self-help clearer, faster, and more effective.

For years, Legal Research for Non-Lawyers has helped people across the country understand how to research the law, represent themselves in court, and protect their rights when hiring a lawyer wasn’t an option. This new edition takes things even further.

🔑 What’s New in the 3rd Edition

  • An entire chapter on using AI tools to speed up legal research and break down complex legal concepts.
  • Updated resources for 2025 with clearer guidance and practical checklists.
  • Expanded examples and forms to help you draft pleadings, motions, and objections.

⚖️ Why This Book Matters

Attorney fees can cost hundreds of dollars per hour, putting justice out of reach for many people. This book gives you the knowledge and tools to:

  • Respond effectively to lawsuits.
  • Fight debt collectors and predatory practices.
  • Research state and federal law with confidence.
  • Prepare for hearings, trials, and even appeals.

💡 Instant Access

The 3rd Edition is available now as a PDF download for just $19.95.
👉 Get your copy here

Don’t let the cost of legal help keep you from justice. With preparation and the right tools, you can represent yourself with confidence.

A Teacher’s Guide to Free Speech Rights:

Understanding First Amendment Protections in Public Schools

Introduction

by R. Randall Hill

High profile firings as a result of comments made about the murder of Charlie Kirk was the primary motivation for this article.

Prior to his murder, I wasn’t familiar Charlie Kirk, however, his rhetoric was described as divisive, racist, xenophobic, and extreme by groups that studied hate speech, including the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Freedom of speech is an important contributor to critical thinking because it presents ideas and different points of view that might not be considered otherwise. Below is video of Shahid King Bolson, responding to the killing of Charlie Kirk, which in my opinion is one of the best responses I have seen!

As a public school teacher, you are both a government employee and a private citizen with constitutional rights. This dual status creates a complex legal landscape where your First Amendment right to free speech intersects with your professional obligations and your employer’s authority. Understanding these boundaries is crucial in today’s digital age, where a single social media post can have career-ending consequences.

It’s important to note that your First Amendment protections against your school district employer exist because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Originally, the Bill of Rights only protected citizens from federal government actions, not state or local governments. Through a legal doctrine called “incorporation,” the Supreme Court has gradually applied First Amendment protections to state and local government actions, including those by public school districts. This means that while you work for a state entity, you retain constitutional protections that can be enforced in federal court.

This guide will help you navigate the intricate balance between your rights as a citizen and your responsibilities as a public educator, providing you with the legal knowledge needed to make informed decisions about your speech both inside and outside the classroom.

The Legal Foundation: Key Supreme Court Cases

Pickering v. Board of Education (1968): The Foundational Case

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pickering v. Board of Education established the basic framework for public employee speech rights that remains in effect today. Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher in Illinois, was fired for writing a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school board’s allocation of funds between athletics and academics.

The Court ruled that Pickering’s dismissal violated the First Amendment, establishing that public employees do not surrender their free speech rights simply by accepting government employment. However, the Court also recognized that the government has interests as an employer that differ from those it has as sovereign.

The Pickering Test weighs:

  • The employee’s interest in commenting on matters of public concern
  • The state’s interest in promoting effective and efficient public services

Connick v. Myers (1983): Defining “Public Concern”

In Connick v. Myers, the Court refined the Pickering standard by establishing that speech must address a “matter of public concern” to receive First Amendment protection. Sheila Myers, an assistant district attorney, was fired after distributing a questionnaire to colleagues about office policies and morale.

The Court held that speech on matters of purely personal interest (like workplace grievances) receives less protection than speech on issues of broader public significance. This case established the critical first step in analyzing public employee speech: determining whether the speech addresses a matter of public concern.

Key Factors for “Public Concern”:

  • Political, social, or other concerns of the community
  • Issues that would be of legitimate news interest
  • Matters relating to political, social, or other concerns of the community

Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006): The Official Duties Exception

The Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos significantly narrowed First Amendment protection for public employees. Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney, faced retaliation after writing a memo questioning the truthfulness of a search warrant affidavit.

The Court ruled that when public employees speak pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens and therefore have no First Amendment protection. This created what’s known as the “official duties exception.”

Critical Impact for Teachers:

  • Speech made as part of curriculum, lesson plans, or official communications may lack protection
  • The line between personal and professional speech becomes crucial
  • Academic freedom arguments may apply differently than general free speech protections

Rankin v. McPherson (1987): Context Matters

In this case, Constance McPherson, a deputy constable, was fired for saying “If they go for him again, I hope they get him” after learning of an assassination attempt on President Reagan. Despite the shocking nature of the comment, the Court found her dismissal unconstitutional.

The Court emphasized that the content, form, and context of speech must all be considered, and that even offensive speech on matters of public concern may be protected if it doesn’t disrupt workplace operations.

Modern Applications and Social Media Challenges

The Digital Transformation of Teacher Speech

Social media has fundamentally changed how teacher speech cases arise and are analyzed. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok blur traditional boundaries between public and private expression, creating new legal challenges.

Key Social Media Considerations

1. Audience and Accessibility

  • Public posts are more likely to be considered matters of public concern
  • Privacy settings may not provide legal protection
  • Students, parents, and administrators may have access to “private” content

2. Professional vs. Personal Identity

  • Using your real name or school affiliation strengthens the connection to your employment
  • Professional photos or school-related content blur personal/professional lines
  • Time of posting (during school hours vs. personal time) matters

3. Impact and Disruption

  • Did the post cause actual disruption to the school environment?
  • Did it undermine your effectiveness as a teacher?
  • How did the school community respond?

Common Scenarios and Their Legal Analysis

Scenario 1: Political Expression

Example: A teacher posts on Facebook supporting or opposing a political candidate, tax levy, or controversial policy.

Legal Analysis:

  • Political speech typically addresses matters of public concern
  • Protection is strongest when posted on personal accounts during non-work hours
  • Risk increases if posts attack specific school officials or policies
  • Context matters: a post supporting higher education funding may be viewed differently than one attacking local school leadership

Protection Level: Generally HIGH, but depends on specific content and context

Scenario 2: Curriculum and Educational Policy Criticism

Example: A teacher criticizes standardized testing, curriculum changes, or educational policies on social media.

Legal Analysis:

  • Educational policy is clearly a matter of public concern
  • May be protected even if critical of employer’s policies
  • Risk increases if speech is made pursuant to official duties (e.g., as part of committee work)
  • Consider whether criticism is constructive vs. purely negative

Protection Level: MODERATE to HIGH, depending on role and context

Scenario 3: Student-Related Posts

Example: A teacher posts about challenging students, difficult parents, or classroom incidents without naming individuals.

Legal Analysis:

  • Generally receives less protection as it’s more about personal job grievances
  • Risk of privacy violations and professional ethics concerns
  • May not constitute “public concern” under Connick standard
  • High risk of disrupting school operations and relationships

Protection Level: LOW to NONE

Scenario 4: Personal Lifestyle and Off-Duty Conduct

Example: A teacher posts photos from social events, discusses personal relationships, or shares lifestyle choices.

Legal Analysis:

  • Personal lifestyle typically not a matter of public concern
  • Protection depends on whether conduct affects job performance
  • Community standards and local values may influence analysis
  • Higher risk in small communities where teachers are public figures

Protection Level: LOW, varies by community

Scenario 5: Social Justice and Controversial Issues

Example: A teacher posts about racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, religious issues, or other socially divisive topics.

Legal Analysis:

  • Social issues typically constitute matters of public concern
  • High potential for community controversy and disruption
  • Balance between First Amendment rights and professional obligations
  • Consider school policies and community demographics

Protection Level: MODERATE, highly fact-dependent

Scenario 6: Criticism of School Administration

Example: A teacher publicly criticizes the principal, superintendent, or school board decisions.

Legal Analysis:

  • May be protected if addressing matters of public concern (policy, budget, educational quality)
  • Less protection for personal attacks or grievances
  • Consider whether alternative channels for complaints were available
  • Risk of workplace disruption and undermined authority

Protection Level: MODERATE, depends on nature and basis of criticism

Best Practices for Protecting Your Rights

Social Media Guidelines

  1. Maintain Separate Professional and Personal Accounts
    • Use privacy settings consistently
    • Consider using a pseudonym for personal accounts
    • Avoid connecting with current students on personal accounts
  2. Think Before You Post
    • Consider how content might be perceived by different audiences
    • Ask: “Would I be comfortable if this appeared in the local newspaper?”
    • Remember that screenshots can make “private” content public
  3. Understand Your District’s Policies
    • Review social media and technology use policies
    • Understand reporting and discipline procedures
    • Know your union contract provisions
  4. Document Everything
    • Save copies of posts that might be controversial
    • Document any retaliation or adverse employment actions
    • Keep records of policy violations alleged by administration

Professional Communication Strategies

  1. Focus on Issues, Not Personalities
    • Criticize policies and practices, not individuals
    • Use constructive rather than inflammatory language
    • Propose solutions alongside criticisms
  2. Choose Appropriate Forums
    • Consider internal channels before going public
    • Understand when union representation is appropriate
    • Know the difference between protected speech and insubordination
  3. Understand Timing and Context
    • Be especially cautious during contract negotiations
    • Consider the impact on ongoing school issues
    • Respect sensitive periods (crises, investigations, etc.)

When Protection May Not Apply

The Garcetti Exception in Schools

Speech made pursuant to official duties receives no First Amendment protection. For teachers, this includes:

  • Curriculum-related communications
  • Grade reports and student evaluations
  • Committee work and professional development
  • Official school communications

Disruption and Efficiency

Even protected speech can be restricted if it:

  • Materially disrupts school operations
  • Undermines working relationships
  • Interferes with educational mission
  • Creates safety or security concerns

Professional Ethics and Standards

Teachers are held to higher standards than other public employees regarding:

  • Student confidentiality and privacy
  • Professional conduct and morality clauses
  • Community role model expectations
  • Fitness to teach determinations

State Law Variations and Additional Protections

Academic Freedom Statutes

Some states have specific academic freedom protections that may provide broader rights than federal constitutional protections. Research your state’s specific laws.

Whistleblower Protections

Many states have whistleblower statutes that protect employees who report illegal activities, safety violations, or misuse of public funds.

Union Contract Provisions

Collective bargaining agreements may provide additional procedural protections and substantive rights beyond constitutional minimums.

What to Do If You Face Retaliation

Immediate Steps

  1. Document the situation thoroughly
  2. Contact your union representative
  3. Preserve all evidence (posts, emails, witness statements)
  4. Follow grievance procedures if applicable
  5. Consult with an employment attorney

Legal Options

  • Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits
  • State court wrongful termination claims
  • Administrative grievances and appeals
  • EEOC complaints if discrimination is involved

Recent Trends and Future Considerations

Technology and Privacy

Courts are still grappling with how traditional First Amendment analysis applies to:

  • Private messaging platforms
  • Disappearing content (Snapchat, Instagram Stories)
  • Anonymous posting
  • Location-based and time-sensitive content

COVID-19 and Remote Learning

The pandemic has blurred traditional boundaries between home and work, creating new questions about:

  • Speech during virtual classes
  • Home environment visibility
  • Off-duty speech with increased scrutiny

Political Polarization

Increased political division has led to:

  • More scrutiny of teachers’ political expression
  • Competing demands for political neutrality and civic engagement
  • State legislation attempting to restrict certain topics or viewpoints

First Amendment Protection Assessment Checklist

Use this checklist to evaluate whether your speech is likely to receive First Amendment protection:

Step 1: Basic Threshold Questions

  • [ ] Are you a public employee? (If no, First Amendment analysis doesn’t apply)
  • [ ] Is this about speech/expression? (Conduct without expressive elements isn’t protected)
  • [ ] Are you speaking as a private citizen? (Official duty speech under Garcetti is not protected)

Step 2: Public Concern Analysis

Does your speech address a matter of public concern? Check all that apply:

  • [ ] Political issues or candidates
  • [ ] Educational policy or school governance
  • [ ] Public spending or budget issues
  • [ ] Social issues of community interest
  • [ ] Safety or welfare concerns
  • [ ] Government misconduct or corruption
  • [ ] Issues that would be of legitimate news interest

Red flags (likely NOT public concern):

  • [ ] Personal workplace grievances
  • [ ] Individual student or parent complaints
  • [ ] Personal employment disputes
  • [ ] Purely private matters

Step 3: Context and Content Evaluation

Rate each factor (Low Risk = 1, Moderate Risk = 2, High Risk = 3):

Content Factors:

  • Personal attack on individuals vs. policy criticism: ___
  • Inflammatory language vs. constructive criticism: ___
  • Accuracy of statements: ___
  • Professional appropriateness: ___

Platform and Audience Factors:

  • Public accessibility of the speech: ___
  • Professional vs. personal account used: ___
  • Connection to your teaching identity: ___
  • Audience includes students/parents: ___

Timing and Context Factors:

  • Posted during work hours: ___
  • Related to current school controversy: ___
  • During sensitive periods (crisis, negotiations): ___

Step 4: Disruption Assessment

Has your speech caused or is it likely to cause:

  • [ ] Actual disruption to school operations
  • [ ] Interference with working relationships
  • [ ] Undermining of your teaching effectiveness
  • [ ] Parent or community complaints
  • [ ] Media attention or public controversy
  • [ ] Safety or security concerns

Step 5: Policy and Professional Standards

Does your speech potentially violate:

  • [ ] Specific district social media policy
  • [ ] Professional ethics standards
  • [ ] Student confidentiality requirements
  • [ ] Morality or fitness clauses in your contract
  • [ ] State teaching standards or regulations

Step 6: Protection Assessment

Based on your checklist responses:

STRONG PROTECTION LIKELY if:

  • Speech addresses clear public concern (Step 2)
  • Low risk scores in most Step 3 categories (mostly 1s)
  • No disruption evidence (Step 4)
  • No policy violations (Step 5)

MODERATE PROTECTION POSSIBLE if:

  • Speech arguably addresses public concern
  • Mixed risk scores in Step 3 (combination of 1s, 2s, 3s)
  • Minor disruption potential
  • Technical policy questions

WEAK OR NO PROTECTION LIKELY if:

  • Speech doesn’t address public concern
  • High risk scores in Step 3 (mostly 2s and 3s)
  • Clear disruption or interference
  • Clear policy violations

Step 7: Decision Framework

Before posting or after posting concerns arise, ask:

  1. Is this worth the risk? Consider your career stage, family obligations, and risk tolerance
  2. Have you exhausted internal channels? Sometimes internal advocacy is more effective and safer
  3. Do you have support? Union backing, community support, or legal resources
  4. What’s your end goal? Ensure your speech strategy aligns with your objectives

Warning Signs: Seek Legal Counsel Immediately If:

  • [ ] You’ve received disciplinary action related to speech
  • [ ] You’re facing termination or non-renewal
  • [ ] You’re being investigated for speech-related conduct
  • [ ] You’ve been told to remove online content
  • [ ] You’re experiencing clear retaliation patterns

Disclaimer: This guide provides general legal information and should not be considered legal advice. First Amendment law is complex and highly fact-specific. Laws vary by state and jurisdiction. If you’re facing employment action related to your speech, consult with an experienced employment attorney who specializes in public employee rights and First Amendment law. Your union representative can also provide valuable guidance and support.

Remember: The best protection is prevention. Think carefully before you post, understand your district’s policies, and when in doubt, consult with knowledgeable advocates before taking action that could jeopardize your career.

The Erasure Protocol — A Dystopian Warning Rooted in History

Imagine waking up in a world where schools no longer exist, history books are banned, and even memory is policed.
That’s the chilling reality of The Erasure Protocol, the new dystopian novel by R. Randall Hill, author of Legal Research for Non-Lawyers and founder of Court.Rchp.com.


A Glimpse Inside the Story

“When they erase the truth, remembering becomes rebellion.”

In a near-future America where mass education has ended because of AI, citizens are divided into rigid classes:

  • Dependents, pacified with meaningless “comfort learning.”
  • Productives, trained only for repetitive labor.
  • Essentials, groomed to rule.

But one young woman, Maya, refuses to forget. With a hidden tablet and fragments of forbidden knowledge, she discovers that memory itself can be a weapon. As she connects with underground “Memory Keepers,” Maya must risk everything to challenge a system built on ignorance and control.

👉 Get your copy of The Erasure Protocol here


A Future That Echoes the Past

While fictional, the book is rooted in documented history:

  • From Roman “bread and circuses,”
  • To Bacon’s Rebellion,
  • To slave codes and the systematic exclusion of minorities from education.

These examples show how knowledge has been manipulated to maintain power. The novel’s warning feels urgent today, when schools and libraries face renewed pressure to restrict curricula or sanitize history.


Why This Story Matters Now

At Court.Rchp.com, our mission has always been to empower ordinary citizens with access to legal knowledge.
The Erasure Protocol carries that mission into fiction, reminding us that access to truth is never guaranteed—it must be protected.

As the story makes clear: the most dangerous phrase in any language may be “Don’t worry about it.”


A Tribute to Teachers and Knowledge Keepers

This novel is also a tribute to the educators, librarians, and ordinary citizens who preserve and share knowledge, often at great personal cost. They are the heroes who stand between truth and erasure.


About the Author

R. Randall Hill is the author of Legal Research for Non-Lawyers and the founder of Court.Rchp.com, a free self-help legal website. His work is dedicated to empowering ordinary citizens to access knowledge and defend their rights.


Get Your Copy

The Erasure Protocol is available now in PDF, and Kindle formats. Teachers, administrators, and school staff can receive a 50% discount as a thank-you for their dedication to education.

👉 Download The Erasure Protocol today or visit Amazon for Kindle.


Share the Message

If this story resonates with you, please share this article with a teacher, librarian, parent, or student who believes that education is freedom.


Closing Thought:
The most dangerous phrase in any language may be: “Don’t worry about it.”
The Erasure Protocol challenges us all to worry about it—to remember, to resist, and to keep the truth alive.