Judge weighs firing over Kirk post

In a closely watched First Amendment case, attorneys for a Florida biologist fired after reposting a controversial social media post about conservative leader Charlie Kirk faced off against lawyers for the state Monday in federal court.

Brittney Brown, a former biologist with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), alleges her September 15 firing — five days after Kirk was shot during an appearance at a Utah university — violated her constitutional right to free speech. Brown had studied shorebirds and seabirds in the area of Tyndall Air Force Base in the Panhandle.

Attorneys representing FWC Executive Director Roger Young and Division Director Melissa Tucker argued that Brown was terminated to “prevent foreseeable disruption, reputational harm, and loss of public trust,” maintaining that the agency “did not police ideology; it protected credibility central to its mission.”

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker heard arguments in Brown’s request for a preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement and an order preventing retaliation over the post.

Brown’s firing stemmed from a repost on her personal Instagram account from “@whalefact.” The post read, “the whales are deeply saddened to learn of the shooting of charlie kirk, haha just kidding, they care exactly as much as charlie kirk cared about children being shot in their classrooms, which is to say, not at all,” according to the lawsuit.

Taylor Greene, an attorney for FWC, told the court the agency received “hundreds of complaints” about Brown’s post, arguing that keeping her employed would “disrupt operations and erode public trust.”

“The agency’s efficiency interests outweigh Ms. Brown’s free speech rights,” Greene said.

But Walker pressed Greene on whether Brown’s post could be viewed as protected political expression on a public issue such as gun control.

“Just because something’s inappropriate or controversial, how is it not covered by the First Amendment?” Walker asked.

Gary Edinger, Brown’s attorney, countered that her post was private speech made off-duty from a personal account.

“It’s a political statement on a matter that everyone in America is still talking about,” Edinger argued.

Walker noted the timing of Brown’s firing — just one day after the conservative account Libs of TikTok shared her post and called for her dismissal — but questioned whether the evidence met the high standard for issuing an injunction.

“You don’t get to fire somebody just because the public is yapping at you,” Walker said, though he added that public employees “don’t have an absolute right” to their jobs.

The defense contended that Brown’s dismissal was consistent with agency policy, while Edinger argued the firing amounted to a “heckler’s veto” — government suppression of speech out of fear of backlash.

“The First Amendment does not shield public employees from the consequences of speech that undermines the effectiveness, credibility, or public trust on which their agencies depend,” state attorneys wrote in a court filing.

Brown’s lawyers maintained that her post was protected civic commentary, noting that Kirk’s legacy remains politically charged and that bills have been filed in the 2026 Legislature to memorialize him.

Walker did not rule Monday but said he would fast-track the case.

Following the hearing, Edinger said he’s heard from other government workers fired for criticizing Kirk since his assassination.

“For one thing, it is an unprecedented response. I have no explanation for it,” he said. “It’s extremely unusual for people to be punished for that.”

Edinger said he remains confident the court will ultimately find in Brown’s favor.

“I think it’s going to be an important statement that the government can only go so far — that we live in a free society and must tolerate a diversity of opinion among our peers, neighbors, and public employees,” Edinger said.