The Ultimate Fight for Freedom:

How a Teen’s COVID Mask Protest Sparked a Landmark Free Speech Case

In January 2022, G.W., a then 16-year-old student at Coronado High School, took a stand against what she saw as an ineffective and useless mask mandate, only to face a barrage of punitive measures from the Coronado Unified School District (CUSD) in San Diego, California.

Her story concerns courage, retaliation, and a flawed legal process is now at the heart of G.W. v. Coronado Unified School District (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Case No. D083991), a case that could redefine student free speech, government accountability, and the proper use of California’s anti-SLAPP law. This post dives into the harrowing details of what happened to G.W., the legal proceedings, her powerful arguments on appeal, and why the courts’ misapplication of the anti-SLAPP statute demands correction. Your much needed financial support through The Gavel Project (a 501(c)(3) public charity) can help G.W. fight for justice and protect the fundamental rights of students across the Country.

What Happened to G.W.: A Teen’s Protest and CUSD’s Retaliation

In 2022, G.W. was a high school student in a specialized program for singing, dance, and acting at Coronado High School, part of CUSD. In August 2021, CUSD implemented a mandatory indoor mask policy for the 2021-2022 school year, which was aligned with California Department of Public Health (CDPH) “guidance” to allegedly curb the spread of COVID-19.

G.W. complied during the fall term but, on January 31, 2022, she decided to stop wearing a mask, believing it was “ineffective and pointless.” She viewed her refusal to adorn a useless face ornament as a form of expressive conduct—a form of protest clearly protected under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1968) 393 U.S. 503, which safeguards student speech unless the speech substantially disrupts the school environment or invades others’ rights. In her complaint, G.W. alleged she was healthy, COVID-free, and her protest caused no disruption to her classes or harm to others. These are facts the court was required to accept as true until contrary evidence was presented. Unfortunately, the courts have rejected the truth of these allegations—denying G.W. her fundamental right to due process (to present her facts to an impartial judge and jury).

CUSD’s response to G.W.’s protest was swift and severe, spanning six weeks from January 31 to March 11, 2022. The complaint details a series of coercive actions by CUSD’s board members, administrators, and teachers (20 individual defendants, who were all sued in their personal capacities):

· Isolation in Harsh Conditions: Throughout her six week protest, G.W. was forced to sit outside in “bitter cold and sweltering heat,” often unable to see or hear classroom instruction. She often had to wear a battery operated jacket (with a heating mechanism) to stay warm. For her acting and singing classes, which required in-person participation, she was made to “direct” herself and perform duets alone, undermining her education.

· Suspensions and Academic Penalties: G.W. received two frivolous, in-school suspensions in February 2022 for allegedly “willfully defying school policy” and “disrupting school activities.” Nearly every day, she was marked “absent” and “unexcused.” In response to her protest, CUSD’s agents threatened truancy charges against her mother, Nicole W. CUSD also threatened to terminate G.W.’s interdistrict transfer unless she “masked up.”

· Police Threats and Intimidation: Assistant Superintendent Donnie Salamanca called the police, alleging G.W. was “trespassing” on campus, despite her right to be there during her bogus in-school suspensions. He also threatened to force her into independent study, violating Cal. Ed. Code § 51747(g)(8).

· Unsafe Lockdown Drill: During an emergency lockdown drill, unlike her sheepish and mask-compliant classmates, G.W. was sent to a bathroom without a lock—leaving her feeling like a “fish in a barrel, waiting to be shot.”

· Emotional and Social Harm: G.W.’s physics teacher, Defendant William Lemei, treated G.W. like a “leper.” The collective actions—public shaming, isolation, and threats by G.W.’s teachers and CUSD administrators—left G.W. anxious, humiliated, and alienated, causing sleep loss and academic setbacks. In all, she missed nearly a third of her school year, requiring significant makeup work.

The ordeal culminated in G.W.’s parents disenrolling her from CHS on March 11, 2022, just as CUSD lifted the mask mandate following updated state guidance. All the while, G.W.’s classmates were permitted to play wind instruments indoors without masks and others were permitted to attend classes and be indoors with their masks below their chins, evidencing inconsistent enforcement. The trauma from this experience continues to haunt G.W. today.

Legal Proceedings: A Lawsuit Dismissed, and a Fee Award Imposed

On August 25, 2022, G.W. and her mother filed a lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court (Case No. 37-2022-00034756-CU-NP-CTL) against CUSD and 20 individuals, including board members, administrators, and her teachers.

The 315-paragraph complaint alleged:

· First Amendment Violations: CUSD’s actions violated G.W.’s right to expressive conduct under Tinkerand 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

· Tom Bane Act Violations (Civ. Code § 52.1): Coercive measures constituted unlawful interference with G.W.’s constitutional rights.

· Negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The conduct of the Defendants caused G.W. severe emotional harm and was intentional and/or reckless.

· Relief Sought: Declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.

Rather than addressing these claims on the merits, CUSD and the individual defendants filed four anti-SLAPP motions under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16, arguing that the lawsuit targeted their “protected” speech (keep in mind, the defendants are all government actors, not citizens protesting government action).

In May of 2023, the trial court granted the motions, finding that the defendants’ “comments and actions” in “formulating and enforcing” the mask policy were protected as a public interest issue under § 425.16(b) and (e)(1)-(4). As far as “protected activity” goes, the court cited only the “casting of votes” (which indisputably occurred nearly half a year before G.W. protested and which had nothing to do with her injuries) and “discussion” regarding the mask policy’s adoption as being protected under § 425.16(e)(2) (which, again, had nothing to do with G.W.’s protest or her injuries). Crucially, the dismissal order failed to address the enforcement actions, and it deemed the policy “lawful” and CUSD’s enforcement “reasonable” (without explaining why such was the case). Ultimately, the trial court concluded, again without any explanation, that G.W. failed to show a probability of prevailing in her case due to various immunities provided to government actors (e.g., Gov. Code §§ 818.2, 820.2, 855.4) and lack of merit in her tort claims—without even attempting to explain why the claims lacked merit.

In February of 2024, the trial court awarded CUSD $68,238.62 in attorneys’ fees, averaging $3,249.46 per defendant, finding the work performed by CUSD’s attorneys was “efficient” and “excellent.”

G.W. appealed the trial court’s granting of the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions (D082619), but in September of 2024, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, citing forfeiture for G.W.’s failure to summarize allegations against each defendant and rejecting her constitutional claims, relying on Jacobson v. Massachusetts(1905) 197 U.S. 11, to uphold CUSD’s actions during a public health emergency.

A rehearing petition filed by G.W. and her mother, arguing the anti-SLAPP dismissal was void for lack of jurisdiction and due process, was denied on October 8, 2024.

G.W. then appealed the fee award (D083991), again arguing that the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions by the trial court was void due to lack of jurisdiction for failure to follow the required process explicitly prescribed by California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

On June 3, 2025, instead of addressing the meritorious arguments raised by G.W. and her mother, the Court of Appeal threatened sanctions against them and their counsel (Tracy L. Henderson, esq.), deeming (again, without any explanation) that the appeal was frivolous and barred by the “law of the case” doctrine. G.W. responded on June 13, asserting the judgment’s voidness and the sanctions’ chilling effect.

G.W.’s Arguments on Appeal

G.W.’s appeal of the fee award hinges on three core arguments, detailed in her Opening Brief, Reply Brief, and Response to the Sanctions Order:

Jurisdictional Defect in Anti-SLAPP Ruling:

· In essence, G.W. and her mother argue that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction under § 425.16 by granting the motions without even attempting to identify the Defendants’ specific statements or actions that were “protected” as free speech or petitioning activity. The dismissal order merely vaguely cited “comments and actions” in “formulating and enforcing” the mask policy, mentioning only the “casting of votes” and “discussion” on policy adoption. The complaint, however, targets only the enforcement actions by the Defendants—e.g., isolation, suspensions, police threats, etc.—that irrefutably occurred months after CUSD’s adoption of the mask mandate. These coercive measures, however, did not “contribute” to the public debate on the topic of masking, as is unequivocally required by FilmOn.com Inc. v. Double Verify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, 149 because silencing speech is not a “free speech” activity.

· Critically, this failure violates the mandatory first-prong of the court’s required analysis explicitly prescribed by California’s anti-SLAPP statute, rendering the judgment “void” (Carlson v. Eassa (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 684, 696. A “void” judgment is one that is issued without jurisdiction (i.e., the court lacks authorized power to act in the particular manner complained of), which subjects the ruling to collateral attack, even after a prior appeal has been adjudicated. 311 S. Spring St. Co. v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1014.

Due Process Violation:

· The Court of Appeal’s forfeiture ruling, faulting G.W. for not summarizing allegations and explaining why the defendants’ actions fell outside of the statute’s protections, improperly shifted the statutorily prescribed first-prong burden to her, violating due process. This is because the first prong of California’s anti-SLAPP statute clearly requires the defendants to show that they are being sued for engaging in a protected activity—not the other way around.

· Indeed, Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384, squarely places the burden on the defendants to prove that their statements and actions constituted protected activity (i.e., that they were sued for engaging in free speech or petitioning their government for redress). This procedural error denied G.W. a fair opportunity to contest the motions, akin to the situation in Estate of Buchman (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 546, 559, where a party was granted relief beyond what was authorized by statute, rendering the judgment void as a matter of law.

· The trial court’s lack of specific findings left G.W. without notice of what acts were protected, compounding the due process violation. The sanctions imposed on G.W. and her mother threaten to further chill her right to appeal.

First Amendment Violations:

· G.W. argues CUSD’s actions violated her Tinker rights to non-disruptive expressive conduct. Her protest was not disruptive (a fact that the trial court was required by law to accept, but rejected), and CUSD’s coercive response—targeting her viewpoint—constitutes impermissible discrimination. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011) 564 U.S. 552, 578-79. She further argues that the Court of Appeal’s reliance on Jacobson overlooks Tinker’s specific protections.

· Furthermore, G.W. and her mother argue that CUSD’s enforcement actions do not qualify as protected activity under § 425.16(e)(4), as they suppressed debate, not furthered it. See FilmOn.com, 7 Cal.5th at 149.

The Anti-SLAPP Statute: Purpose and Misapplication

What the Anti-SLAPP Statute Does:

California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16) was enacted to combat “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (SLAPPs)—lawsuits filed to chill free speech or petitioning rights. It allows defendants to file a special motion to strike claims if “arising from any act . . . in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech . . . in connection with a public issue” unless the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing (§ 425.16(b)(1)).

The statute defines protected acts under § 425.16(e) as:

· Statements made in official proceedings.

· Statements connected to issues under review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body.

· Statements in a public forum on a public issue.

· Other conduct furthering free speech or petition rights on a public issue (Opening Brief, pp. 12-13).

When a court considers an anti-SLAPP motion, it is required to engage in a two-part (or “two-prong”) analysis:

· Prong One: First, to prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion, the defendants must show the claim “arises from” protected activity. See Park v. Bd. of Trs. of Cal. State Univ. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1063. For conduct to “arise from” protected activity under § 425.16(e)(4), the conduct must “contribute to the public debate,” not just relate to a public issue. See FilmOn.com, 7 Cal.5th at 149.

· Prong Two: If, and only if, prong one is met, then the burden shifts to the plaintiffs, who must show a probability of prevailing in their lawsuit. See Baral, 1 Cal.5th at 384.

In essence, the “anti-SLAPP” statute grants trial courts across California limited jurisdiction to dismiss claims, but only if defendants meet their prong one burden. See Durkin v. City & Cty. of S.F. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 643, 651. Failure to do so requires denial of the anti-SLAPP motion without reaching prong two.

Why the Anti-SLAPP Statute Was Wrongly Applied Here:

The courts have generally failed to follow the jurisdictional prerequisites established by California’s anti-SLAPP statute in G.W.’s case, committing severe jurisdictional and due process violations:

Failure to Identify Protected Acts (Jurisdictional Defect):

· The trial court’s ruling was fatally vague, stating only that CUSD’s “comments and actions” in “formulating and enforcing” the mask policy were protected, citing only the public interest in COVID-19 policies. It identified just one specific act—“casting of votes” and “discussion” on policy adoption—as protected under § 425.16(e)(2). Yet, G.W.’s complaint targets only enforcement actions (i.e., seeking redress for her injuries caused by the policy’s enforcement)—not the casting of votes or discussions regarding passing the policy—which all occurred between January and March of 2022. Said differently, all of G.W.’s injuries arose nearly half a year after the policy’s adoption—and she did not sue because the policy was passed. She sued only because of the way the policy was punitively implemented to silence her viewpoint.

· Enforcement actions like isolating G.W., suspending her, or threatening police action do not inherently (or even implicitly) further public debate, as required by FilmOn.com. 7 Cal.5th at 149. These coercive measures suppressed G.W.’s speech. They did not further the debate on the propriety of CUSD’s mask mandate. See Sorrell, 564 U.S. at 578-79. Thus, the trial court’s failure to link specific acts to § 425.16(e)(4) violates Park’s requirement to focus on the “speech or petitioning activity itself.”

· This omission is critical, because the dismissal without making the required findings exceeds the court’s jurisdiction under § 425.16, rendering the judgment void. See Carlson, 54 Cal.App.4th at 696. Generally, a court lacks authority to grant requested relief without satisfying explicitly prescribed statutory prerequisites (see 311 S. Spring St., 178 Cal.App.4th at 1018), and the void judgment is subject to collateral attack, even on a second appeal. See Carr, 151 Cal.App.4th at 936.

Improper Burden Shift (Due Process Violation):

· The Court of Appeal compounded the trial court’s error by affirming the dismissal of G.W.’s lawsuit based on forfeiture, faulting G.W. for not summarizing allegations against each defendant and not explaining why each defendants’ statements and actions fell outside of the protections of California’s anti-SLAPP statute. This ruling, however, wrongly shifted the prong one burden to G.W.—defying Baral’s mandate that the defendants must prove that their activity was protected (i.e., that their statements and actions “arose from” protected activity), which is a burden they must carry even on appeal. 1 Cal.5th at 384. Due process, however, requires a fair opportunity to contest motions (Carr, 151 Cal.App.4th at 936), and when the Court of Appeal shifted the burden to G.W., it denied her this right.

· The lack of specific findings in both the trial court and the Court of Appeal left G.W. without notice of what acts were deemed protected, further violating due process (Estate of Buchman, 123 Cal.App.2d at 559; Opening Brief, p. 20). Now, the sanctions threat by the Court of Appeal aims to chill her right to appeal a void judgment, which she is entitled to do by California law.

Mischaracterization of Claims:

· Like the trial court, the Court of Appeal misread the complaint as challenging the mask policy’s adoption, which G.W. concedes is protected and which G.W. never sued over (because the adoption of the mask mandate did not injure her). Indeed, the face of the lawsuit makes clear that she was only suing due to the injuries caused by the defendants’ punitive enforcement of the mask policy, which does not automatically qualify as protected speech. See Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89.

· By treating enforcement as generally protected—without providing any analysis as to why sticking a girl out in the bitter cold for the purpose of punishing her to silence her speech—the California judiciary has allowed CUSD to misuse California’s anti-SLAPP statute to shield constitutional violations—which is antithetical to the statute’s purpose—to protect citizens (not state actors) who are engaged in free speech, such as G.W. See FilmOn.com, 7 Cal.5th at 149.

In essence, the anti-SLAPP statute was not followed because it was used to dismiss a legitimate lawsuit alleging First Amendment violations without first requiring CUSD to meet its burden that is explicitly required by law. These holdings threaten to turn a law meant to protect speech into a weapon for government actors to generally silence dissent, a critical issue for California’s courts and citizens.

Be advised—if G.W.’s case is not successful—it means that the First Amendment no longer exists in California.

Why Support G.W. Through The Gavel Project?

G.W.’s fight is a David-versus-Goliath struggle against a well-funded school district. The nearly $100,000 attorneys’ fee award and the new sanctions threat by the Court of Appeal impose a crushing burden, risking her ability to continue. The Gavel Project, through local counsel Tracy L. Henderson, is championing G.W.’s cause to protect your right to free speech by holding CUSD accountable. Your tax-deductible financial support via The Gavel Project will:

· Fund likely appeals to the California Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court, where G.W.’s Tinker and due process claims could set precedent;

· Counter CUSD’s resources, ensuring that neither G.W. nor her parents are punished for standing up for her rights; and

· Advance The Gavel Project’s mission to defend constitutional protections nationwide.

Call to Action

G.W.’s case is a battle for every student’s right to speak, every citizen’s right to a fair trial, and every community’s right to check government power. If CUSD’s actions stand, schools could suppress dissent under public health pretexts, and anti-SLAPP laws could be used as a weapon to eliminate free speech entirely. This is the most important case currently pending in any court in the United States. Please make a tax-deductible donation to The Gavel Project today, share this post, and use #GWvCoronado to rally for justice. Together, we can ensure that G.W.’s voice is heard, and her rights are upheld!