North Carolina Teen Sues School After Spirit-Rock Tribute to Charlie Kirk Led to Investigation and Policy Change

A junior at Ardrey Kell High School in Charlotte, N.C., has filed a federal complaint alleging the school improperly labeled her tribute on the campus “spirit rock” as vandalism, said it notified law enforcement, and then changed school policy to bar political and religious messages.

What Happened

According to the complaint filed Monday and provided to Fox News Digital, student Gabby Stout called the front office on Sept. 12 to ask whether she could paint the spirit rock with a patriotic message honoring conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who the complaint says was killed two days earlier. Staff told her she could paint as long as the message did not include profanity or political speech.

On Sept. 13, Stout and two friends painted a heart, an American flag, the phrase “Freedom 1776,” and a tribute that read “Live Like Kirk—John 11:25,” and added their first names. The complaint says school officials painted over the message within hours.

School Response And Student’s Account

The next day the principal reportedly sent a campus-wide message calling the painting unauthorized, labeling it vandalism, and saying law enforcement had been contacted for an investigation. Stout told Fox News Digital she was shocked and intimidated.

“I was completely shocked. I was very intimidated and scared as I had no idea what I did wrong or that I could be getting in trouble for simply sharing and expressing my views and beliefs,” Stout said.

The complaint alleges Stout was repeatedly pulled from class, taken to the principal’s office, asked to write a statement, forced to revise it after omitting the Bible verse while upset, and required to surrender her cell phone for a search — all without being advised of her constitutional rights or provided access to counsel.

Policy Change And Clarifications

The day after the incident, the district adopted a revised Spirit Rock Speech Code that bans all political and religious messages and requires messages to reflect “positive school spirit,” “inclusive values,” and be in “good taste.” Stout’s mother was later told the investigation was closed and no discipline would be taken.

On Oct. 11 the district sent an internal clarification saying the rock incident “was not an act of vandalism,” “was not a violation of the student code of conduct,” and that “law enforcement was not contacted to conduct an investigation.” The complaint contends this clarification failed to address the school’s earlier actions — including compelling a written statement without advising Stout of her rights — and appears inconsistent with the principal’s earlier statement to local media.

Legal Claims And Relief Sought

Filed by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Stout’s parents, the complaint alleges violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It asks the court to order the school to:

• Issue a public statement acknowledging the violations;
• Expunge negative information from Stout’s school records and issue a formal apology;
• Stop enforcing the vandalism rule and the revised spirit-rock policy in a way that permits viewpoint discrimination;
• Award nominal and compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief the court deems proper.

Context And Aftermath

The complaint notes the school previously permitted political messages on the rock — including a 2020 pro-Black Lives Matter painting that the district later allowed students to restore after controversy — and facilitated a student walkout last November protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Plaintiffs say that history shows the district has at times permitted left-leaning student expression while treating conservative or religious messages differently.

Stout’s parents allege that, following the incident, their daughter experienced stress-related health problems and weeks of social-media harassment, including threats and messages celebrating the alleged investigation. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education is the named defendant; the board did not immediately respond to requests for comment.