Teacher Political Speech in Schools: What the Ringwood Decision Means for School Boards

By: Rebeca Rojas, Former Law Clerk

The First Amendment stands as one of the most fiercely protected guarantees in U.S. constitutional law, yet its application can become more complicated when the speaker is a public-school teacher and the audience is a classroom of students. For school board leaders navigating how to regulate employee political speech, recent case provides useful guidance on how far a school district may go to restrict political speech of employees without crossing boundaries.

Recently, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued its decision in Ringwood Education Association v. Ringwood Board of Education. This case involved a First Amendment challenge of a school board’s policy regulating teachers’ political speech. The Ringwood policy essentially prohibited teaching staff members from engaging in “any activity in the presence of students while on school grounds, which is intended…to promote…a position on labor relations issues.” The policy also prohibited teaching staff members from engaging in political activity on school grounds, unless otherwise permitted.

On July 20, 2026, a three-judge panel upheld this policy as constitutional, providing fresh guidance on the limits of speech regulation in schools.

The Ringwood Policy

This case arose after a complaint was filed seeking to enforce the Ringwood speech policy when teachers began placing campaign lawn signs of local Board candidates under the windshields of their cars while parked outside of a middle school during the school day.

The constitutionality of this policy turned largely on precedent established by the Appellate Division in Green Twp. Educ. Ass’n v. Rowe. In Green, the court applied established First Amendment principles, asking first whether the prohibited speech is a matter of public concern and, if so, whether the State’s interest as an employer outweighs the interest of the employee as a citizen to comment on matters of public concern.¹

The Green Decision

In Green, teachers began displaying “NJEA SETTLE NOW” buttons during ongoing collective bargaining negotiations. The school district’s policy prohibited “all employees” from “active campaigning” or “actively promoting any opinions on voting issues…on school property.”

The problem was the breadth of the policy. It was not limited to a particular classroom or facility, nor did it apply only when students were present. As written, the policy could prohibit a teacher from expressing an opinion about a voting issue during a lunch break or free period, even when no students were nearby.

The court found the policy overbroad. Although educational policy and labor relations are matters of public concern, the teachers’ interest in speaking as private citizens outweighed the government’s interest in regulating speech that was disconnected from the school’s educational function and did not involve student exposure.

Importantly, however, the Green court indicated that a policy restricting labor-relations speech occurring on school property and in the presence of students could pass constitutional muster.

Ringwood Draws the Line

Ringwood presented the Appellate Division with that precise question. The novel issue was whether a Board could restrict speech that occurred outside the classroom but still took place on school property in a location where students could see it. Although a campaign sign is a less direct form of expression than a teacher speaking to students in the classroom, displaying the sign is still an expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.

The court upheld the Ringwood policy because of the limits the Board placed on the restriction. Unlike the policy in Green, the Ringwood policy did not broadly regulate teacher’s political speech simply because they were on school property. Instead, it focused on speech occurring on school grounds in a location accessible to students.

That distinction was critical. The Ringwood policy did not reach a teacher’s political speech during off-duty time or outside the presence of students. Instead, it regulated expressive activity occurring in a school setting where students could be exposed to the speech. The court therefore concluded that the policy’s narrower focus appropriately balanced the Board’s interest in protecting students from exposure to campaign materials at school against teacher’s First Amendment rights as private citizens.

Ringwood and Green illustrate an important lesson for school boards: when regulating employee speech, the scope of the policy matters. When reviewing or drafting a policy that touches on teachers’ First Amendment rights, school boards should consider:

• Time: Does the policy apply during the school day or during an employee’s personal time?
• Place: Is the restriction limited to school property or a specific school setting?
• Student presence or accessibility: Is the restriction tied to speech that students can actually see or hear?
• Scope: Does the policy regulate speech generally, or does it address a specific type of expressive activity in a specific school setting?

A policy that carefully connects the restriction to school property and student exposure is more consistent with the approach approved in Ringwood. By contrast, a policy that broadly prohibits teachers from expressing political opinions simply because they are on school property may raise the same overbreadth concerns identified in Green.

For school boards, the takeaway is straightforward: the goal is not simply to prohibit political speech at school, but to carefully define when, where, and under what circumstances the school may regulate that speech.

¹ This balancing test comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Pickering v. Board of Education, (391 U.S. 563 (1968)

 

---

This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC. The information contained herein is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute as legal advice. Readers of this publication herein should not rely upon or use as a substitute for consultation with legal, career and or professional advisors. Nothing herein should be considered advice, recommendation, or an offer to perform services. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.