WILL represented Scarlett on appeal to dismiss a meritless defamation claim after she made public comments criticizing her school district
The News: The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled in favor of WILL’s client, Scarlett Johnson, a Wisconsin Moms for Liberty activist sued for defamation for criticizing her school district. The Court agreed with WILL’s argument that Scarlett’s posts were statements of opinion that are not provably false and therefore cannot be defamatory. WILL separately argued that a defamation trial would have violated Scarlett’s First Amendment rights. Although the Court did not reach that issue, its decision protects her right to speak freely on the important issues of our day.
The Quotes: WILL Deputy Counsel, Luke Berg, stated, “Scarlett, like all of us, has the right to question and criticize her government. The defamation lawsuit against her was meritless and should have been promptly dismissed. We are pleased that the Court agreed and that Scarlett can put this distraction behind her.”
WILL Client, Scarlett Johnson, stated, “Free speech belongs to every mom, dad, and citizen who demands answers and accountability from their government. I am grateful that WILL stood alongside me in this legal battle. Parents across the country are speaking out against radical ideology in our schools, and our fight does not stop today.”
The Court’s Ruling: The Wisconsin appeals court agreed with WILL’s arguments that our client’s statements were not defamation, stating that, “We conclude that Johnson’s statements do not constitute defamation, thus, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to enter summary judgment in Johnson’s favor.”
Additional Background: The initial lawsuit involved a defamation claim for run-of-the-mill social media posts on X and Facebook. The posts in question criticized a school district for having a “social justice coordinator,” and described people who hold such positions as “woke,” “white savior[s]” with a “god complex,” “woke lunatics,” and “bullies.” Statements like these are pervasive on social media; indeed, they were more restrained than a lot of online speech. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff, who previously held the position, chose to respond with a defamation lawsuit, and the trial court allowed the claims to go to trial.
WILL stepped in to file an early appeal to avoid a costly and non-sensical defamation trial for First Amendment protected speech. We argued, and the Court agreed, that for statements to be actionable for defamation, they must be “provably false.” See Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 (1990). That is, a comment must directly state or clearly imply an objective, binary truth claim that listeners would reasonably understand to be either true or false. As courts have recognized, firm adherence to this principle is critical to protecting free speech.
Courts have regularly held that nebulous concepts like “woke” and “bully” that are routinely and indiscriminately thrown about in public discourse are not actionable precisely because their meaning depends on one’s opinion and viewpoint. As the court noted in this case, “Johnson’s statements cannot be proven true or false.”
Read more:
Court Order, October 2025
