Judge recommends dismissing state’s case against Clay County teacher over Charlie Kirk Facebook post

An administrative law judge has recommended that the Education Practices Commission dismiss the state’s administrative complaint against Clay County teacher Kelly Brock-Sanchez over a Facebook post she made the day Charlie Kirk was killed. Judge Suzanne Van Wyk of the Division of Administrative Hearings filed the recommended order Oct. 21 in DOAH Case No. 26-1626PL, finding the state failed to prove any of its five counts.¹

The case is brought by Henry Mack, as commissioner of education. The Florida Phoenix reported that then-Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas had found probable cause and sought permanent revocation of her educator’s certificate.¹²

The charges

The order says Brock-Sanchez was an Exceptional Student Education facilitator at Ridgeview Elementary School in Clay County. The complaint, filed Sept. 22, 2025, alleged that she posted comments on her “public social media account” after Kirk’s death and quoted her post as saying the news was “a close second for me.” Its five counts charged gross immorality or moral turpitude, conduct that seriously reduces her effectiveness, and violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct, including failing to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and to distinguish her personal views from her school’s.¹

What the judge found

Van Wyk found that the first post “expresses personal approval, if not celebration,” of Kirk’s death. She also found that Brock-Sanchez posted on a private, personal Facebook account under a pseudonym and that someone among her Facebook friends shared the post more widely, after which it went “viral.” The order says the school received more than 800 emails and 300 posts on its Facebook page, and that the district sent extra staff and requested a second sheriff’s deputy. It also describes a second post Brock-Sanchez made Sept. 11, 2025, after learning the first had spread. That post said, “One less evil person on this planet,” and the judge found it was unreasonable for her to assume it would stay private.¹

The judge wrote that every count rested on the allegation that the post was on a public account, which the state did not prove by clear and convincing evidence. She noted the state stressed that her profile photo was visible to people who were not her friends, though they could not see her posts, but wrote that the state “did not charge” her with posting on a private account with a public-facing picture. Because a licensee may be disciplined only for what the complaint charges, Van Wyk concluded, the state did not establish the violations. She wrote that the first post was “clearly impulsive, and may have been reckless, thoughtless, offensive, and even callous,” and that the order is not an endorsement or approval of it.¹

Background and next steps

The certificate case was first consolidated with DOAH Case No. 26-0009TTS, which was severed in May and placed in abeyance. The Phoenix reported that the Clay County School Board terminated her contract on the superintendent’s recommendation, and that she has filed a federal lawsuit against Kamoutsas in his official capacity, with trial set for November 2027.¹²

Under the order’s notice, parties have 15 days to file written exceptions with the agency that will issue the final order. Section 1012.796(7) directs an Education Practices Commission panel to enter a final order dismissing the complaint or imposing penalties.¹³ Under section 120.57(1), the agency may reject or modify the judge’s findings of fact only after reviewing the entire record and finding they were not based on competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings did not comply with essential requirements of law.⁴

What the records do not show

• What penalty the state sought; the order does not say, and the permanent-revocation figure comes from the Phoenix.
• Whether exceptions have been filed or when the commission will take up the case; the DOAH docket could not be retrieved for this story.
• What Case No. 26-0009TTS concerns or its status beyond its placement in abeyance; the order does not describe it. The termination and the federal lawsuit were not reviewed directly.
• The order’s signature block carries a different case number, 25-3357PL, from its caption, 26-1626PL.
• The order dates the principal’s overnight wake-up to Sept. 11, 2026, while the surrounding findings place the events in September 2025.