Parents Win Free Speech Victory in Court

Detail,Of,A,Judge,Passing,Sentence,By,Hitting,With,The

A Wisconsin mother who called a DEI coordinator “woke” and a “white savior” just scored a massive First Amendment victory that could protect parents nationwide from frivolous defamation lawsuits.

Story Highlights

Wisconsin Court of Appeals dismisses defamation lawsuit against Moms for Liberty leader Scarlett Johnson.
Johnson criticized taxpayer-funded “Social Justice Coordinator” position in 2022 social media posts.
Court ruled terms like “woke,” “bully,” and “white savior” are protected opinion, not defamatory facts.
Victory sets legal precedent protecting parental criticism of school district DEI initiatives.

Appeals Court Delivers Free Speech Victory

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals handed down a decisive ruling Tuesday, dismissing a three-year defamation lawsuit against Scarlett Johnson, chair of Moms for Liberty’s Ozaukee County chapter. Johnson faced legal action after posting criticism of Mary MacCudden, a former English teacher and Social Justice Coordinator for the Mequon-Thiensville School District. The court determined Johnson’s statements constituted protected political opinion rather than actionable defamation, reversing a lower court’s decision to let the case proceed.

My case sets a legal precedent.

This win is for every mom and dad, every grandparent in America who dares to attend a school board meeting and use their voice on social media to confront their local district!

Parents everywhere can now speak the truth about what’s happening in… pic.twitter.com/BR6aAvtr2N

— Scarlett Johnson (@scarlett4kids) November 1, 2025

Johnson’s ordeal began in October 2022 when she questioned taxpayer funding for MacCudden’s specialized position. Her social media post read: “Why the hell am I paying for a ‘Social Justice Coordinator’ in my school district? This is just what @mtschools needs; more woke, White women w/ a god complex. Thank you, White savior.” MacCudden subsequently filed suit, claiming the statements were false and intended to damage her reputation.

Court Protects Hyperbolic Political Criticism

Deputy Chief Judge M. Joseph Donald emphasized that Johnson’s language fell squarely within First Amendment protections. The court noted terms like “woke,” “white savior,” “bully,” and “lunatic” are either subjective opinions or lack sufficiently clear definitions to constitute provably false statements of fact. This distinction proves crucial in defamation law, where opinions receive broader constitutional protection than factual assertions.

The appeals court found Johnson “was not commenting on MacCudden’s teaching record or qualifications” but rather criticizing a publicly-funded position and broader DEI policies. Johnson based her statements on publicly available information from MacCudden’s LinkedIn profile, not undisclosed personal knowledge. This reasoning aligns with established precedent favoring robust political debate over individual reputation protection in matters of public concern.

Landmark Precedent for Parental Rights Movement

Johnson’s victory carries implications far beyond Wisconsin’s borders. The ruling establishes that parents can criticize school district DEI initiatives and personnel using strong, even harsh language without fear of defamation liability. This protection proves especially significant given the financial burden Johnson endured—nearly 1,100 days of litigation that could have bankrupted an ordinary citizen without organizational support from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.

The timing of the ruling adds symbolic weight to the victory. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued its decision exactly three years after MacCudden filed her original complaint, suggesting judicial recognition of the case’s broader significance. Johnson previously faced a similar defamation suit in 2021 from Bridge the Divide, a “racial reconciliation” nonprofit, during her school board campaign—a case she characterized as a “political hit job” that was dismissed shortly after MacCudden’s filing.

Victory Emboldens Conservative Parent Activists

Johnson expressed profound relief following the ruling, stating: “I felt I had to fight back in this case. It couldn’t be like the other. I had to stand up because this would never stop. They’d keep going after parents like me.” Her determination reflects growing frustration among conservative parents who view DEI programs as divisive and wasteful of taxpayer resources.

The decision validates concerns that defamation lawsuits have become weapons to silence parental criticism of progressive school policies. Johnson emphasized the precedential value: “This sets legal precedent. Parents everywhere can speak the truth about what’s happening in their schools with a little less fear that they’re going to be dragged into court for frivolous lawsuits.” This protection arrives as school districts nationwide face increasing scrutiny over DEI spending and ideologically-driven programming.

Watch the reporting: Teacher sues for defamation after social media post sparks political firestorm