A trial date has been scheduled for January 19, 2027, for the First Amendment case involving suspended University of Tennessee assistant professor Tamar Shirinian. This legal proceeding stems from her controversial comment on Facebook regarding the assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk. The case will be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in Knoxville and is expected to last five days.
Shirinian was placed on administrative leave pending termination after posting remarks on her personal Facebook page that referenced Kirk’s children. According to a lawsuit, the university deemed her statements unacceptable, asserting that they appeared to endorse violence, which contradicts the institution’s core values. Despite issuing an apology and describing her comment as insensitive, Shirinian’s employment status at the university remains uncertain.
Legal developments intensified when Judge Katherine Crytzer denied Shirinian’s request for a restraining order that would have permitted her immediate return to teaching duties. This ruling has amplified discussions about the scope of academic free speech and the implications for public employees’ private expressions under the First Amendment. A favorable outcome for Shirinian could establish critical precedents regarding the protections of personal speech for educators.
The controversy surrounding the case has drawn significant attention from conservative media and public figures, including Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has called for Shirinian’s termination. “She was calling for my termination, promising in her newsletter that she would do everything she could to make sure that I am terminated,” Shirinian stated to Scripps News, reflecting on the backlash she has faced.
Shirinian’s attorney, Robb Bigelow, argues that as a public university employee, her right to private expression is secured by the First Amendment. This claim is being contested by the university, which is pursuing her dismissal for what it describes as gross misconduct.
As the trial approaches, the case is expected to further ignite debates over the boundaries of academic free speech and the responsibilities of public institutions in regulating faculty discourse. The court’s decision in 2027 may have lasting implications on personal expression in the digital age, especially as First Amendment rights come under scrutiny within educational settings.
