In a ruling issued last week, Florida Administrative Law Judge Garnett W. Chisenhall addressed the Mack v. McMath case, and the following passages are presented here in paraphrased form.
Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent political activist, on September 10, 2025, McMath posted a message on her Facebook page reading, “Karma’s a bitch—and she heard all your speeches when you proudly proclaimed that you didn’t give a shit about other people’s lives.” She also shared a graphic showing the author, E. Jean Carroll, holding the severed head of Donald Trump, the President of the United States.
Regarding the karma post, McMath contends she did not celebrate Kirk’s assassination: “There was nothing to celebrate that day. I felt, and the language in my post reflects that it was a dark moment. It was a hard moment. And it was a moment also filled with a lot of complexity. And so I was not celebrating, and the language in that post and the intention behind that post was not celebratory.”
As for the image of Carroll holding the President’s severed head, McMath argues the image carries symbolic meaning:
It is an image created by a political cartoonist I follow and respect. It depicts Carroll holding the severed head of Donald Trump. The artist released it on the day Carroll achieved legal vindication in her lawsuit against the President regarding rape and sexual assault allegations.
It was also a powerful symbol because it references a long tradition of survivorship imagery dating back to medieval times, such as Judith and Holofernes. I could name many examples, but this isn’t an art history lecture. The point is that the image is symbolic, depicting women who have endured abuse overcoming their abusers.
There is no evidence that McMath’s posts were made during any school-related event or using school-owned property. The posts do not indicate that McMath spoke on behalf of Douglas Anderson or the School District, nor do they show any connection to her duties as a district educator….
Kosac, who heads the Florida Department of Education’s Office of Professional Practices, spoke with roughly ten of McMath’s students, and none reported seeing her social media posts. Kosac found: (a) no evidence that the social media posts disrupted operations at Douglas Anderson or anywhere else in the School District; (b) no students claiming their education was disrupted by her postings; (c) no evidence of protests against McMath; and (d) no evidence that the postings were made on school property or during school hours….
The administrative law judge recommended dismissing the charges against McMath; an excerpt from the analysis follows:
Count I hinges on whether McMath’s social media postings meet the definition of “gross immorality” under Rule 6A-10.083(1), and a reasonable interpretation shows insufficient clear and convincing evidence to support Count I. For instance, regarding subsection (1), there is no competent, substantial evidence demonstrating that McMath’s conduct brought the teaching profession into public disgrace or disrespect. As noted previously, investigators Bennett and Kosac did not receive complaints from School District students or staff. There is also no competent, substantial evidence that the social media postings at issue impaired McMath’s service in the community….
Regarding subsection (4), the Commission contends that factors such as violence, deliberation, and the vulnerability of the affected audience—students—are present…. [But] Subsection (4) identifies an “educator’s use, attempted use or threatened use of violence” as indicative of gross immorality. The postings did not show any use, attempted use, or threatened use of violence by McMath. Also, the Commissioner has not argued that McMath’s post was a legitimate threat to sever President Trump’s head. Subsection (4) also identifies an educator’s deliberation, premeditation, or contemplation of an act as indicating gross immorality. The social media postings did not reflect any deliberation, premeditation, or contemplation of any act by McMath. Finally, McMath persuasively testified that students were not her intended audience….
In Count II, the Commissioner alleges that McMath violated section 1012.795(1)(g), which allows revocation of an educator certificate if the person “has been found guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces that person’s effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.” … [But] there is no evidence that the social media postings seriously reduced McMath’s effectiveness as a School District employee. Although the District reassigned her to a position without teaching duties, the record provides no persuasive explanation for this action. In fact, Principal Feagins would prefer to have McMath back.
There is also no persuasive evidence to support the Commission’s claim that McMath cannot teach students. On the contrary, the record clearly shows she remains capable of being an effective classroom teacher. As noted above, Bennett’s investigation found no complaints from teachers, administrators, or students within the School District. Similarly, Kosac found no students asserting that McMath’s social media postings disrupted their education….
In Count IV, the Commissioner contends that McMath violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1, which obligates Florida-licensed educators to “make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” The Commission argued as follows:
… The rule measures the educator’s effort. It does not require proof of injury or proof that a particular student was harmed; it requires proof that the educator failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from such conditions.
[McMath] taught eleventh- and twelfth-grade students. On an account identifying her as a Duval County teacher and accessible to the entire world, she published, on the day of a public assassination, a statement invoking “karma” against the victim and stating that “she heard all your speeches.” On the same account she circulated an image showing the screaming severed head of the sitting President of the United States. Content that trivializes a homicide and depicts the decapitation of a national figure is a condition harmful to learning and to the mental health of the adolescent students who encounter it.
[McMath] made no effort to shield her students from exposure to that content. She did not restrict the accounts, delete the posts, issue disclaimers, or remove the employer’s name from her profile. Her accounts remain public, and the “Karma’s a bitch” post remains accessible to students.
No individual student was identified as having viewed the posts. That does not defeat the charge. The rule requires a reasonable effort in the face of a harmful condition, and an educator who broadcasts such content to a worldwide audience and takes no protective measures whatsoever fails to meet that obligation….
The Commission did not carry its burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence in support of Count IV. The record shows McMath did not attempt to impose her political views on her students…. [S]he limits students from following her on social media and she does not engage in private conversations with students outside the classroom. While the Commission maintains that McMath’s posts were “harmful to learning and to the mental health of the adolescent students who encountered” them, it offered no persuasive evidence, such as expert testimony from a child psychologist, to support that assertion.
Additionally, the Commission did not present testimony from any students asserting that their learning and/or mental health were negatively affected by the social media postings at issue. Therefore, even if students had seen McMath’s posts, the Commission has not shown that those students’ learning or mental health would have suffered.
In Count V, the Commissioner claims that McMath violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(b)1, which requires Florida-licensed educators to “take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of any educational institution or organization with which the individual is affiliated.” … Even though McMath’s social media accounts identify her as a Duval County schoolteacher, the Commission did not present evidence suggesting that a reasonable observer would conclude that Douglas Anderson and/or the School District endorsed the sentiments expressed in her posts. Furthermore, the posts appeared on McMath’s personal social media accounts rather than on accounts maintained by Douglas Anderson or the School District….
McMath is represented by John M. Phillips (Phillips, Hunt, & Walker).
