A Kansas City woman was banished from school property for nothing more than embarrassing the district, her attorney argues.

If true, then her “death penalty for bad publicity,” as lawyer Linus Baker puts it, would be a frightening abuse of government power indeed.

Carrie Schmidt was banned indefinitely Feb. 11 from all Gardner Edgerton Unified School District 231 property and events – even those at other school districts’ facilities involving Gardner Edgerton, such as sporting events.

All because the watchful suburban KC mom took a photo of a Gay-Straight Alliance poster in the high school, a photo that went viral when she shared it with conservative watchdog account Libs of TikTok on X.

Moreover, the district superintendent also ordered Schmidt to have no contact whatsoever, wherever, with the teacher associated with the poster – a power normally associated only with the courts.

“It is,” Baker tells The Heartlander, “and school districts don’t have that [authority]. She’s not an employee. She’s just a citizen, a parent. And here he comes, thinking he’s got that kind of authority? And the attorney that represented [the district] said, ‘A-OK, go ahead.’ It’s astounding.”

Baker says U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren, who issued an injunction lifting the ban on Schmidt after a Friday hearing in her lawsuit against the district, expressed great concern about where the district’s authority comes from – especially in banning Schmidt from other districts’ properties.

Given that the district’s actions against Schmidt appear to emanate from the firestorm of criticism it received nationally from the Libs of TikTok post, Baker says the judge opined at the hearing that, in Baker’s words, Schmidt is “not responsible for what others republish or what people say.”

“Basically, this is a case of of her getting the death penalty for bad publicity,” Baker argues.

Meanwhile, Baker says district Superintendent Dr. Brian Huff – when pressed by both Baker and Judge Melgren – couldn’t explain which of six policies the district has cited that Schmidt violated.

One of the policies the district belatedly claimed she violated was “bullying by parents” – ostensibly for the public ire aimed at the teacher responsible for the poster. But Baker noted to Huff that Schmidt didn’t do any of that — and that, anyway, the policy regards on-campus behavior, and the TikTok post certainly wasn’t.

Baker says Huff acknowledged to the judge that there was no evidence Schmidt participated in the online backlash against the teacher – and that Schmidt had never done anything disruptive at school.

 The Heartlander asked Baker if he’s ever heard of a mom being punished so severely for doing so little.

“Not like this,” he said. “I mean, this was so, so over the top. I mean, just for me, it reeks of retaliation. …

“We look like fascist Great Britain in limiting and punishing speech that disrupts our feelings or our thoughts. The new commandment that is being preached by this school district is ‘Thou shalt not make another person feel bad about themselves.’ …

“Here in America, too many soldiers have fought and died for our right to speak against ideas and government action – irrespective if it hurts someone’s feelings.”

Such draconian, and legally questionable, punishment could clearly cast a pall over content creators – which, today, is practically anyone with a smart phone – as well as citizens simply seeking to hold local governments accountable for their actions.

“Yes,” Baker says. “If the dots can be connected in the manner Superintendent Huff and his attorney believe, then students, teachers, and parents can be punished for anything that is republished out of the public domain.”

In a response to The Heartlander’s request for comment on the injunction Friday, a school district spokesman said there would be no further comment.

“USD 231 is fully prepared to defend its actions in court,” Dr. Ben Boothe, assistant superintendent of Educational Services, wrote The Heartlander in an email, “and, because this matter is in litigation, will not be providing public comment on the matter other than through the court proceedings.”

For his part, Baker fully expects district officials to fight Schmidt’s lawsuit rather than admit its overreach in punishing her – in large part because it’s taxpayers’ money being spent, not theirs.

“My prediction is they’re still going to spend good taxpayer money after bad. They’re not going to let this go. They’re going to file motions to dismiss and whatever.”

While the district cited some half-dozen policies Schmidt supposedly violated, Baker says it appears to have no policy governing what books librarians offer students or what messages are posted on school walls.