A suburban Kansas City mother who’s doggedly monitored sexually inappropriate materials in her public schools is now suing the district for banning her from school property last week.

After previously exposing explicit books on district shelves – and having been derided by school board members for reading bawdy excerpts at their meetings to make her point – Carrie Schmidt’s federal lawsuit alleges Kansas’ Gardner Edgerton Unified School District 231 retaliated against her Feb. 11, violating her right to due process and her First Amendment right to free speech.

Schmidt took photos of sex-related posters in a school that she believed violated President Trump’s Jan. 29 executive order “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” She sent at least one photo to X watchdog account Libs of TikTok, which posted it Feb. 7. The photo advertised the high school’s Gay-Straight Alliance meetings.

By Feb. 11, Schmidt was banned from all Gardner Edgerton property and events – including those involving her children, such as sporting events, senior night and graduation ceremonies, without special permission from district officials.

One message to Schmidt from a district official cited problems with her behavior, rather than any law or policy.

“I would hope that with time, you would demonstrate proper civic behavior to our high school community,” Gardner Edgerton High School Principal Frank Bell wrote to her, according to the lawsuit.

“Candidly, it will take some time and healthy civic behavior on your part, to earn the school’s trust once again.”

Schmidt’s lawyer, Linus Baker, said it’s not for the school to trust Schmidt, or for her to mold her behavior to suit officials, but to respect her civil rights as a citizen.

“In their playbook they go by a commandment which is ‘Thou shalt not offend a teacher,’ or ‘Thou shalt not offend a school administrator,’” Baker says. “And that, to them, is incivility. That means you hurt someone’s feelings, and that’s not right. You just should never do that.  

“And so, any speech that a parent has, always has to be positive. It can’t be criticizing, it can’t be negative. And if it is, then it’s not civil. …

“It’s simply, they think it’s incivility to criticize them, to embarrass them, to bring out to light what they’re actually doing. That’s fascism. I call it a fiefdom. They treat this school like it’s just their own little kingdom – a fiefdom [in which] they censor and control everything.”

The district accused Schmidt of disrupting the educational process in taking those photographs and disseminating them – essentially blaming her for the national backlash, Baker says.

Superintendent Dr. Brian Huff “actually blames Carrie for the things that TikTok publishes,” Baker says. “He blames Carrie for the comments that people make back to TikTok. He blames Carrie that people can go online to the USD 231 website and they can find [the teacher’s] name and her school e-mail address. They blamed her for that. And then they blame Carrie because I guess [the teacher] is offended or whatever. …

“The idea that she disrupted the educational process in a vacant building with two janitors is ludicrous. What was disruptive? It was her ideas that were disruptive.

“And who did they disrupt? Well, they disrupted Brian Huff’s feelings and the teacher’s feelings and Frank Bell’s feelings. Welcome to the First Amendment! That’s not a disruption. I mean, I get to disrupt your feelings. And that’s called free expression, freedom of speech.”

Baker, who majored in journalism, says Schmidt has been punished for being part whistleblower, part journalist.

“You could call her a citizen journalist. What is it she’s doing? She’s giving truthful information out to the public.”

The lawsuit asks that Schmidt’s rights be restored and the ban be lifted, that she be returned to a district committee she was on, and an injunction prohibiting this from happening again.

Moreover, Baker said the district should be assessed attorney’s fees, and that the individuals being sued – Huff, Bell and school board member Greg Chapman – be personally liable for punitive damages.

“I think this has strong evidence meriting punitive damages. This all reeks of malice and premeditated intent – targeting Carrie for protected activity. I think it’s malicious. And I think a jury would be more than outraged to see how they have denigrated her on numerous occasions. And I think they are exposed entirely, these individuals, to punitive damages.”

According to the lawsuit, the district may have retaliated against at least one of Schmidt’s children as well.

“It’s a message that puts fear into children and to students,” Baker says. “I mean, if they do it to the parents and do it to the students, what’s left?

“The court system should make them proud when a judge comes back and says your mother was right and they are wrong. That’s where the federal court system comes into play and gives them that confidence and that boldness.  

“Right now, these students are laboring under the thumb of these school administrators, and they send out a different message. 

“We need the federal court system to come through for Carrie Schmidt, and tell the school district what they’re doing was wrong not only to her, but to the students.”

In August, video of Schmidt addressing the school board about an explicit book went viral after male board members appeared to deride her efforts and her microphone was muted at times.

The Heartlander reached out to the district and to Chapman for comment. Chapman politely declined comment, referring The Heartlander to the district office. A district spokesperson replied the district hadn’t been notified of the lawsuit, and “We prefer to have an official copy before we respond to press requests. I can share that your statement about the microphones being muted is patently false.”