Conservative Wisconsin Mom Escapes Defamation Suit After Calling School District “Woke” — Court Rules Her Social Posts Are Protected Free Speech
A Wisconsin mother and conservative activist has won a significant legal victory after being sued for defamation over critical posts she made about her school district’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. The case involved 48-year-old Scarlett Johnson, a leader in the state chapter of Moms for Liberty, who in October 2022 posted on social media about the hiring of a “Social Justice Coordinator” by the Mequon‑Thiensville School District (MTSD) and used terminology questioning the motives and value of that role.
Johnson’s posts included a screenshot of the district employee’s LinkedIn profile and statements such as “Why the hell am I paying for a ‘Social Justice Coordinator’ in my school district?” and “This is just what @mtschools needs; more woke, White women w/ a god complex. Thank you, White savior.” She also referred to DEI specialists as “woke lunatics” and “bullies who bully parents into silence and compliance.” In response, the woman pictured in the post, former English teacher and Social Justice Coordinator Mary MacCudden, filed a defamation lawsuit against Johnson, alleging that these posts amounted to false statements harmful to her reputation.
In the original circuit court proceeding, parts of the case moved forward, but Johnson appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. On October 28, 2025, the appellate court ruled decisively in Johnson’s favor, holding that her posts were protected opinion under the First Amendment and could not form the basis of a defamation claim because they contained no provably false factual assertions. The court emphasized that statements such as “woke,” “White savior,” and “god complex” are “vague and do not have a clear meaning or definition” and therefore fall into the category of non-actionable opinion rather than actionable defamation.
This ruling is already drawing attention as a possible precedent for other parents and activists raising concerns about education policy. Johnson and her legal representation from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) hailed the outcome as a victory for free speech and parental rights. “We have a right to free speech in this country and no one should be treated differently under the law because of their political beliefs,” Johnson said in an interview. She described the lawsuit as an attempt to silence her voice and those of other parents speaking out against what she views as radical ideology in schools.
Her advocacy has centered around what she characterizes as excessive ideological programming in public education and the growing role of DEI initiatives. She said she faced what she believed was a politically timed intimidation attempt when the civil suit was filed just days before a 2021 school board election. She said the court’s decision sends a message: parents who voice criticism of public-school policies cannot be dragged to court simply for expressing their viewpoints.
On the other side, the plaintiff’s legal team did not offer comment following the appellate ruling when contacted. One judge on the three-member panel dissented, noting that Johnson had identified MacCudden by name and might have implied undisclosed factual claims, thus leaving a narrow door open for future challenges in similar circumstances. But the majority opinion stands: Johnson’s language was subjective and non-factual, and thus legally protected.
Legal experts say the decision touches on longstanding tensions between defamation law and free-speech protections, especially in the realm of public commentary on education and policy issues. The key foundation of defamation law is that statements must be false and verifiable; opinions, however harsh or mocking, remain protected unless they assert a provably false fact. In this case, Johnson’s statements were deemed hyper-bolic, emotive, and inherently rhetorical — not subject to verification in the way a factual claim would be. As WILL explained in its commentary: “Nebulous concepts like ‘woke’ and ‘bully’ are not actionable because their meaning depends on one’s opinion and viewpoint.”
For parents who fear retribution for speaking out, the ruling offers reassurance — at least in Wisconsin for now. Johnson said she hopes other parents will feel emboldened to challenge what she calls “radical ideologies” in public schools without the fear of being sued. “This sets legal precedent,” she said. “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.”
Those on the other side of the debate caution that while this ruling covers broad opinion-based commentary, not all public criticism will be protected in the same way. They point out that identifying someone by name and implying false facts could still trigger liability. The dissenting judge noted that Johnson’s posts, by naming MacCudden, might have implied that MacCudden was guilty of wrongdoing or misconduct — statements that could be proven false and thus actionable. Whether repeated cases in other states will follow Wisconsin’s lead remains to be seen.
For now, the Mequon-Thiensville community remains in the spotlight. The school district has faced sustained criticism from parents and activists about the role and funding of DEI programs, and this legal development may reshape how districts respond to critics. There are concerns that school systems may become more cautious about suing parents or teachers over critical comments, especially on social media. Some districts may tighten policies around identifying staff roles or weaken responses to parental criticism as a result.
The decision also underscores the broader cultural and political fight over what public education should focus on in America. For Johnson, it is not just a legal win, but a reaffirmation of what she hopes will become a larger shift — of parents asserting greater influence over schooling content, curricular priorities and ideological framing. She said her actions began as simple social-media posts—but turned into a decades-defining legal moment. “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,” Johnson said.
In the wake of the ruling, Johnson is returning to her role as parent-advocate. She continues to speak at school-board meetings, to mobilize fellow Moms for Liberty members, and to monitor policy developments in Wisconsin and beyond. She emphasized that victory does not mean exhaustion; instead it means renewed responsibility. “Speak loud. Speak proud. We have a right to question and criticize our government,” she said. Her campaign points to the court’s decision as validating that speech remains free—at least for now—regardless of the cost or the backlash.
The day’s outcome is unlikely to settle the larger debate about DEI programs, parental rights and public-school priorities. But in this case, one mother’s fight against a school-district lawsuit has become a landmark in the struggle for speech rights in education. Whether the ripple effects will reach other states or prompt new legislation remains uncertain. What is clear is that the ruling affirms: when criticism takes the form of opinion, no matter how pointed, the constitution still protects it.
