Wisconsin Appeals Court Tosses Defamation Lawsuit Against Moms for Liberty Leader
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN — A Wisconsin appeals court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by a former teacher against Scarlett Johnson, the Ozaukee County Chair of Moms for Liberty, ruling that her controversial social media comments were protected opinions under the First Amendment.
The case stemmed from a 2022 Facebook post in which Johnson criticized the Mequon-Thiensville School District for employing a “Social Justice Coordinator,” a position then held by Mary MacCudden, who later resigned from the district.
Post That Sparked the Legal Battle
In the post, Johnson shared a screenshot of MacCudden’s LinkedIn profile, questioning the taxpayer funding of such a role.
“Why the hell am I paying for a ‘Social Justice Coordinator’ in my school district?” Johnson wrote. “This is just what @mtschools needs; more woke, white women w/ a god complex. Thank you, white savior.”
She later added in a follow-up comment:
“Parents know these woke lunatics are bullies. They are bullying you into silence and compliance. Good teachers should earn more, get support & feel safe.”
MacCudden, who resigned from her position in January 2022 but had not updated her online job listing, filed a defamation lawsuit that October, arguing Johnson’s posts were false, malicious, and damaging to her reputation.
Court Rules the Comments Were Protected Opinion
After nearly three years of litigation, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled in Johnson’s favor this week.
Deputy Chief Judge M. Joseph Donald wrote in the majority opinion that the language Johnson used — including terms like “woke,” “lunatic,” and “white savior” — was “subjective, rhetorical, and not capable of being proven true or false.”
“Johnson was not commenting on MacCudden’s teaching record or qualifications,” Judge Donald wrote. “Further, Johnson did not indicate that she had any personal experience with MacCudden or was basing her statements on anything other than what she disclosed from her LinkedIn profile.”
Because the comments were expressions of opinion and not factual assertions, the court concluded they were protected by free speech laws.
Johnson Responds: ‘This Was About the Position, Not the Person’
Speaking to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Johnson said her criticism was directed at taxpayer-funded diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) positions, not MacCudden personally.
“This wasn’t about the person,” Johnson said. “It was about the position [of social justice coordinator] and the taxpayer-funded status of that position in my mind. I was against DEI and these types of jobs in my school district.”
The decision marks another high-profile legal win for Johnson, who previously settled a 2021 defamation case brought by the community group Bridge the Divide, after she referred to the organization as “Marxist.”
Broader Context: DEI Roles Under Fire
The ruling comes amid growing debate nationwide over DEI programs in public schools, which critics — including Moms for Liberty chapters — have characterized as politically motivated or ideologically divisive. Supporters argue such roles are essential for fostering equity and inclusion in education.
Legal experts say the case highlights how online political speech, even when inflammatory, often falls under the umbrella of constitutionally protected opinion.
Do you think social media criticism of public school programs should be protected speech or held to higher accountability? Share your thoughts and continue the conversation at ChicagoMusicGuide.com.