The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Roderick E. Theis II, a former educator, affirming a lower court's decision that denied his request for a preliminary injunction. Theis claimed that the InterMountain Education Service District (IMESD) violated his First Amendment rights by directing him to remove certain books from his offices and reprimanding him for displaying those books. This ruling affects educators' rights to express personal views within school settings.

The case, Theis v. Intermountain Education Service District - Board of Directors, was filed under docket number 25-8039. Theis, a licensed clinical social worker, worked as an Education Specialist for IMESD for over 15 years. His role involved assessing and supporting students' educational needs in eastern Oregon. The dispute arose when Theis displayed books in his offices that some deemed controversial, leading to complaints and subsequent disciplinary actions from IMESD.

Theis displayed two books, He Is He and She Is She, which promote a binary view of gender, in his La Grande Middle School office. Additionally, he displayed Johnny the Walrus, a children's book that allegorically addresses transgender issues, in his Elgin School District office. Following a complaint regarding these displays, IMESD concluded that Theis's actions constituted a bias incident under its policy, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.

After an investigation, IMESD directed Theis to remove the books from his offices, warning that failure to comply could lead to disciplinary action, including termination. Theis appealed the decision but was unsuccessful, prompting him to file a lawsuit in May 2025 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights. He sought both declaratory and injunctive relief, including permission to display the books.

The district court initially granted Theis a partial injunction, allowing him to display the books only when students were not present. However, Theis resumed displaying the books even when students entered his office, leading to a second investigation by IMESD, which ultimately resulted in his termination.

The Ninth Circuit Court, led by Judge John B. Owens, ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Theis's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that educators speak as government employees when conveying messages to students within a school setting. As such, Theis's speech fell outside the protection of the First Amendment.

The court stated, "Theis's speech occurred in the course of those responsibilities and cannot be meaningfully separated from them. As such, Theis's speech falls outside the First Amendment's ambit."

The court's ruling also distinguished this case from the Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which involved a football coach's personal prayer after games. The Ninth Circuit noted that Theis was not engaged in private expression detached from his role but was instead performing his professional duties when displaying the books.

The dissenting opinion from Judge Lawrence VanDyke argued that Theis's display of the books should be considered personal expression, similar to how other educators are permitted to express their views in their offices. VanDyke contended that Theis's expression related to a matter of public concern and should be protected under the First Amendment.

This ruling has significant implications for educators across the country. It reinforces the idea that school employees may have limited rights to express personal views while performing their official duties, particularly in settings where students are present. The decision may discourage educators from displaying materials that reflect personal beliefs or perspectives, fearing potential disciplinary action from school administrations.

Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Theis will appeal the ruling to a higher court. The case raises important questions about the balance between educators' rights to free speech and the responsibilities of public schools to maintain a neutral educational environment. As debates over educational content and personal expression continue, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases in the future.