Weeks after State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters settled an ethics violation involving his use of social media, Walters claimed victory Thursday in a different dispute over his online behavior, this time in litigation brought by Summer Boismier — a former Norman Public Schools teacher who filed a defamation lawsuit against the controversial politician in August 2023.
In an April 10 order (embedded below), U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones granted Walters summary judgement, finding Boismier to be a “limited-purpose public figure” regarding disagreements over a new state law and determining that she did not provide evidence that actual malice occurred in regard to Walters’ August 2022 Twitter posts calling for the Oklahoma State Board of Education to revoke her teaching certification. At the time, Walters was campaigning for state superintendent while actively serving as Oklahoma’s secretary of education.
Walters’ posts were made in response to Boismier’s resignation from NPS after making headlines for covering her classroom display of books and posting a QR code that linked to the Books Unbanned webpage of the Brooklyn Public Library.
“This is a monumental win for parents, students, and the integrity of our education system,” Walters said in a press release Thursday. “We have sent a clear message that Oklahoma’s schools will remain free from political indoctrination and that our children deserve an education that is focused on core academic values, not the promotion of controversial ideologies.”
Covering her display in red butcher paper with the words “Books the state doesn’t want you to read” emblazoned across it, Boismier intended to make a stand against HB 1775, which passed in 2021 to ban the teaching of certain concepts about race and gender in Oklahoma public schools.
Following a complaint from a concerned parent, Boismier was put under investigation in Norman Public Schools and later resigned from her position only a few days into the 2022-2023 academic year.
In the Aug. 31 letter Walters sent to the the State Board of Education, he incorrectly referred to Boismier being fired and called on the board to revoke Boismier’s teaching certification. He posted the letter on Twitter along with a demand for then-state superintendent and gubernatorial candidate Joy Hofmeister to “do your job.” Hours later, he posted another version of the letter, correcting the statement about Boismier’s departure.
“There is no place for a teacher with a liberal political agenda in the classroom,” Walters said in the letter. “Ms. Boismier’s providing access to banned and pornographic material to students is unacceptable and we must ensure she doesn’t go to another district and do the same thing.”
According to Boismier’s complaint, Walters made a series of “widely published” public comments criticizing Boismier after she “engaged in First Amendment speech criticizing new laws and policies he championed.” Boismier also alleged that Walters made the following false representations about her in his letter:
- “Plaintiff was engaged in the distribution of child pornography to minors;”
- “Plaintiff was morally unfit to teach;”
- “Plaintiff had been fired by the Norman Public Schools;”
- “Plaintiff had violated Oklahoma law;” and
- “Plaintiff represented a danger to minor children.”
With a trial pending June 10, Walters’ attorneys filed a motion for summary judgement Feb. 3 asserting that Boismier is a “limited-purpose public figure” and in turn would need to prove that Walters’ statements constituted actual malice. A “limited-purpose” public figure is an individual who “[thrusts] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved” — a definition Jones determined Boismier met concerning the controversy surrounding HB 1775.
In his order granting summary judgement, Jones explained his reasoning to qualify Boismier as a limited-purpose public figure:
The distinction here is that Boismier did not speak out as a private figure swept unwillingly into a public controversy; she “voluntarily inject[ed]” herself to the forefront of debate over HB 1775 and its impact on classrooms like hers. (…) Before Walters’s tweets, Boismier had already transformed her classroom into a visible protest against HB 1775 and posted about it on Twitter — by her own admission, motivated by Walters’s commentary on Gender Queer. Then, on the heels of her resignation, she actively facilitated media coverage of her departure from teaching and opposition to HB 1775, providing direct quotes to numerous outlets and offering extended commentary in at least two question-and-answer interviews. Finally, on the very day Walters tweeted about her, she appeared in an Oklahoma daily newspaper to voice further frustrations about HB 1775 and call for change in local schools. There can be little doubt that Boismier actively used the media as a vehicle to influence public sentiment regarding HB 1775’s effect on education in Oklahoma. And the court finds that this conduct rendered her a limited-purpose public figure on the issue of HB 1775’s interplay with her teaching career in Oklahoma.
Once qualifying Boismier as a limited-purpose public figure, Jones evaluated whether actual malice — meaning the statements must have been knowingly false and made with a reckless disregard for the truth — could be found within Walters’ Aug. 31 Twitter posts. The court determined Boismier failed to provide “clear and convincing evidence” that Walters acted with actual malice.
“To be sure, Walters often engages in pointed and provocative rhetoric — particularly when responding to those he perceives as opposing his agenda,” Jones wrote. “One need look no further than the news stories cited in Boismier’s response. In one, Walters is recently described as linking the 2025 terrorist attack in New Orleans, Louisiana, to educational instruction in public schools. But what is lacking from Boismier is any genuine explanation of how Walters’ post-August 2022 conduct — some of which occurred as recently as 2025 — establishes that he spoke with actual malice when stating that Boismier had been terminated. To the extent this history suggests some degree of ‘ill will, hatred or a desire to injure’ Boismier, that alone ‘is not enough to establish actual malice.'”
Having established these two findings, Jones granted Walters’ request for summary judgement. Jones then concluded his order with a statement about the First Amendment and free speech.
“As a final parting note, the court does not suggest that Boismier or anyone else should be dissuaded from speaking loudly and passionately about causes in which they believe,” Jones wrote. “She, like all others, is free to publicly disagree with this state’s politicians, subject to the protections and limits of the First Amendment. But when one voluntarily steps out from the shadows of private life to speak on a matter of public controversy, the Supreme Court has made clear that the burden to prevail in a defamation action is a formidable one. And here, the court concludes that Boismier has not met it.”
Read the full order granting summary judgement
