A former middle school counselor in Missouri who was fired after he refused to take down books about gender identity in his office has lost his case for a second time, with a federal appeals court ruling that his First Amendment claims fall short because he was speaking as a public employee, not a private citizen.
Jonathan Griesemer, who worked as a counselor at Nixa Middle School in the Nixa Public Schools district, was terminated in 2022 after administrators told him to remove several books from his office that dealt with gender identity and sexuality. Griesemer refused, arguing the books were protected speech. He sued the district, claiming his firing violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The dispute centered on a handful of titles Griesemer kept in his counseling office, including "It Feels Good to Be Yourself: A Book About Gender Identity" and "When Aidan Became a Brother." Administrators told Griesemer the books were not part of the approved school curriculum and ordered him to remove them. Griesemer declined, telling the district the materials helped him support students.
The Nixa school district, located in a conservative stretch of southwest Missouri, maintained that Griesemer's refusal to follow a direct order from his supervisors was insubordination. District officials said the books had not gone through any formal review or approval process and were not sanctioned instructional materials.
Griesemer countered that his decision to keep the books was an act of personal expression protected by the First Amendment. He framed the issue as one of free speech, arguing that the government cannot fire a public employee for exercising constitutional rights.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit disagreed. In its ruling, the three-judge panel applied the framework from the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which holds that public employees do not enjoy First Amendment protection for speech made in the course of their official duties. The court found that Griesemer's display of books in his school counseling office fell squarely within his role as a district employee, not his capacity as a private citizen.
The distinction matters. Under Garcetti, a teacher or counselor who speaks on a matter of public concern as a private citizen may have constitutional protection. But when that same employee speaks or acts as part of the job, the employer, in this case a public school district, has broad authority to manage workplace conduct. The Eighth Circuit concluded Griesemer was acting as a counselor, not as a citizen, when he chose to display the books.
The ruling echoed the lower court's decision. A federal district judge had previously granted summary judgment to the school district, finding that Griesemer's claims could not survive the Garcetti test. The appeals court affirmed that holding in full, as Fox News reported.
The Eighth Circuit's opinion drew a firm line between personal conviction and professional conduct. The court noted that Griesemer was hired to serve as a school counselor and that the books in question were placed in his office in connection with that role. His refusal to remove them was not akin to a citizen writing a letter to the editor or speaking at a town hall. It was a workplace decision, and the school district had every right to direct it.
Griesemer also raised a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, arguing that the district deprived him of a property interest in his employment without adequate process. The court rejected that argument as well, finding the district followed its procedures in terminating him. The ruling mirrors the broader judicial trend of courts declining to second-guess school administrators on internal personnel decisions, much as recent legal disputes have tested the boundaries of judicial authority over professional conduct.
For many conservative parents and school board members, the outcome validates what they have argued for years: that individual employees should not be able to unilaterally introduce contested material into schools without approval. The Nixa district's position was straightforward. Counselors do not get to stock their offices with whatever books they choose, especially when the content touches on issues that divide the community.
The case arrives at a moment when school districts across the country are grappling with how to handle books and materials that address gender identity, particularly for younger students. Several states have passed laws restricting or banning such materials from school libraries and classrooms. Missouri itself has seen heated debates at the local level over what belongs in schools and who decides.
Griesemer's supporters framed the case as a free speech fight, but the court's analysis turned on a narrower question: whether the speech at issue was private or professional. The answer, twice now, has been professional. That framing leaves little room for appeal unless Griesemer can persuade the Supreme Court to revisit or narrow the Garcetti doctrine, a long shot by any measure.
The tension between employee speech rights and employer authority is not unique to schools. A Wyoming judge recently won $640,000 after the state punished her for declining to officiate same-sex weddings, a case that cut in the opposite direction on the question of whether government employees retain personal conscience rights on the job.
The Supreme Court's Garcetti decision has been a flashpoint since it was handed down nearly two decades ago. The ruling gave public employers significant power to regulate employee speech that occurs as part of official duties. Critics on both the left and right have argued the standard is too broad, potentially chilling legitimate dissent within government agencies, schools, and law enforcement.
But courts have applied it consistently. The test asks two questions. First, was the employee speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern? Second, if so, does the employer's interest in efficient operations outweigh the employee's speech interest? If the answer to the first question is no, the inquiry stops. The employee loses.
In Griesemer's case, the Eighth Circuit never reached the balancing test. It found that his speech was made in his capacity as an employee, full stop. That made the second question irrelevant. The practical effect is clear: public school employees who want to display contested materials in their workspaces do so at their own risk if the district objects.
Broader questions about institutional authority in schools continue to surface in other contexts. The House Judiciary Committee recently launched a probe into the ABA's role in pushing DEI standards on law schools, reflecting growing conservative scrutiny of how educational institutions use their power to shape ideological norms.
Griesemer could petition the Supreme Court for review, but the odds are steep. The high court has shown little appetite for revisiting Garcetti in recent terms, and the Eighth Circuit's application of the doctrine here is well within the mainstream of federal appellate law. No circuit split exists on this particular question that might compel the justices to take the case.
The Nixa school district, for its part, has treated the matter as closed. District officials maintained throughout the litigation that the termination was about insubordination, not ideology. Whether or not one agrees with that characterization, the courts have accepted it twice.
For parents who have pushed back against gender identity materials in schools, the ruling offers a useful precedent. It confirms that school districts retain the authority to decide what materials appear in their buildings and that individual employees cannot override those decisions by invoking the First Amendment. Courts have shown a willingness to draw firm lines around institutional authority, even when the underlying issues are politically charged.
The case also highlights a practical reality for public employees everywhere. The Constitution protects your right to speak as a citizen. It does not guarantee your right to turn your workplace into a platform for personal causes, no matter how strongly you feel about them.
Two courts examined Griesemer's claims. Two courts said no. The message is plain enough: when you work for a public school district, the district sets the rules for what goes in your office. The First Amendment is a shield for citizens, not a license for employees to defy their employers on the clock.
