The Case That Will Decide Whether the First Amendment Still Exists
Shared content approved by author.
How Freedom Dies: The Gabrielle Ward Case and California’s War on Dissent
In early 2022, Gabrielle Ward, a heroic young girl at Coronado High School, decided to stand up for our rights. She peacefully refused to wear a mask, protesting an irrational, unlawful, and discriminatory policy that had no basis in science or statutory authority.
Her protest was quiet—but brave. The school’s response was anything but.
For six weeks, officials forced her to sit outside in the heat and cold, excluded her from classrooms, and humiliated her in front of her peers. She was twice suspended, threatened with being reported for “assault” when she tried to enter class, and ultimately forced to withdraw from school. What began as a simple act of conscience spiraled into a public ordeal that left a teenager emotionally broken and deprived of an education.
This case should have been simple: a student peacefully protested government overreach, and government officials retaliated. That is a textbook First Amendment violation.
Why She Sued
Represented by attorneys Tracy L. Henderson and Ryan L. Heath (The Gavel Project), Gabrielle and her mother, Nicole, filed suit against the Coronado Unified School District and its officials for violating her constitutional rights.
The claims were straightforward:
First Amendment violations — Punishing a student for peaceful protest violates Tinker v. Des Moines and the bedrock rule that students do not “shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”
Bane Act violations — The officials used threats, coercion, and intimidation to force Gabrielle to comply with an unlawful mandate.
Negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress — Officials knew their conduct would cause severe emotional harm, and did it anyway.
Gabrielle did not sue because she disliked masks. She sued because her government punished her for dissent — for exercising the very rights our Constitution exists to protect.
The Anti-SLAPP Statute — and How the Courts Rewrote It
California’s anti-SLAPP law (§ 425.16) was enacted to protect citizens from being silenced by the powerful. It prevents meritless lawsuits — “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” — designed to chill free speech.
But in Gabrielle’s case, the courts did something extraordinary: they used the anti-SLAPP statute against the citizen, to shield the government.
Here’s what happened:
The school district filed an anti-SLAPP motion, claiming that punishing a student and enforcing a masking rule were acts of “protected speech” on a “public issue.”
The trial court agreed, finding that officials’ enforcement of the mask mandate was “protected activity,” taking judicial notice of “asymptomatic transmission” and comparing Gabrielle’s protest to bringing “a gun to school.”
The Court of Appeal affirmed, declaring that the government’s enforcement of a coercive rule was “speech” deserving protection, while the student’s silent dissent was somehow the problem.
That is not a misapplication of the law — it is a rewrite of it. The courts did not just bend the statute; they re-engineered it to protect government actors and silence dissent. By skipping the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis — which requires the defendants to identify specific “acts in furtherance of speech” — the courts exercised power they did not have. They invented new law and assumed the job of the legislature to reach a predetermined result.
In doing so, they converted a statute meant to protect the people into a weapon to crush the people.
How the Case Returned to the Court of Appeal
After the Court of Appeal affirmed the anti-SLAPP dismissal in September 2024, Gabrielle’s legal team immediately petitioned for rehearing, pointing out that both the trial court and the appellate panel had skipped the first statutory step required under § 425.16 — identifying which specific “acts in furtherance” of free speech supposedly triggered protection. The petition was denied without explanation.
Next, the defendants sought and received over $68,000 in attorneys’ fees in the trial court. That award was based entirely on the now-tainted dismissal. Gabrielle and her counsel appealed again — not to reargue the case, but to challenge that the underlying judgment was void because the courts had acted without jurisdiction, having rewritten the statute to reach their desired result.
Shockingly, the same appellate panel heard the second appeal. When Gabrielle’s attorneys objected — repeatedly — to this bias and jurisdictional overreach, the court didn’t correct itself. It retaliated. Instead of addressing the jurisdictional defect or the well-founded constitutional objections, it doubled down. In an extraordinary move, it imposed $13,000 in sanctions on Attorney Tracy L. Henderson, accusing her of filing a “frivolous” appeal — even as she cited binding precedent and demanded the court explain its statutory authority to bypass the first step of anti-SLAPP analysis.
The Newsom appointees on the Court of Appeal didn’t even attempt to explain how they had acted within their jurisdiction. Instead, they refused to engage in the arguments and then punished the people who called them out.
That’s not impartial justice; that’s self-protection through intimidation. It’s blatantly unconstitutional, violates due process, and flies in the face of every principle of judicial ethics and independence.
Why This Is Dangerous
If allowed to stand, these decisions will do lasting damage to the First Amendment and to California law:
Government coercion will become “protected speech.” Officials who retaliate against citizens will be able to claim that their conduct — even punishment or exclusion — is speech immune from suit.
The judiciary will operate without limits. By rewriting statutes to reach favored outcomes, courts abandon the rule of law and assume legislative power.
Civil-rights lawyers will be silenced. Sanctioning attorneys for objecting to judicial bias or jurisdictional error will chill zealous advocacy in every case involving government abuse.
Your rights will evaporate. If the government can claim “free speech” immunity when it punishes dissent, then your speech is only free when it pleases those in power.
This isn’t hyperbole. It’s already happened. This appeal is the last chance to turn the ship right.
Help Us Keep Fighting
Gabrielle went through hell for standing up for her rights. The courts have punished her again — and punished her lawyers for defending her. This is not just wrong; it is intolerable in a free and civilized society.
We’re fighting back. But Supreme Court litigation is costly. Our upcoming expenses include:
Filing and service fees for the petition and appendices
Pro hac vice admission fees for counsel
Printing and preparation costs required by court rules
If we don’t win in the California Supreme Court, we’ll need to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, which will cost tens of thousands. Every dollar you contribute helps us keep this case alive — and keep the Constitution alive with it.
A Personal Note
My family has personally given hundreds of thousands of dollars to this cause — both through my time (thousands of pro bono hours) and through direct financial support of The Gavel Project. My law firm, Heath Law, PLLC, has paid associates to work on this case instead of taking on other paying matters. My family has personally paid multiple attorneys, including Tracy Henderson, to help fight this battle.
We’ve poured everything into this because the law is on our side, and the truth still matters. But to keep going — to take this all the way to victory — we need your help.
Please make a tax-deductible donation today to support The Gavel Project. Every dollar directly fuels our fight for constitutional freedom.
Support our fight today.
In Liberty,
Ryan L. Heath
Founder & CEO, The Gavel Project
