Asking her constituents on Facebook for their thoughts on a proposed tax increase, while emphasizing she spoke as a private citizen and not on behalf of the school board, got Gail Nazarene threatened by the New Jersey School Ethics Commission for supposedly talking out of turn — one of many shots across the bow at school board members statewide.

The commission beat Nazarene's November 2025 First Amendment lawsuit last month. Then a curious thing happened: It finally cleared the Alloway Township Board of Education member days after her lawyers promised to appeal, preserving the commission's sweeping interpretation of the School Ethics Act and its ability to punish Nazarene if she speaks up again.

“New Jersey did the right thing this time" but the proceeding, which started in April 2025, "never should’ve happened in the first place," said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression lawyer Greg Greubel, representing Nazarene. "If we get wind of another ethics complaint being used as censorship, we are not afraid to sue again."

The Navy veteran and "Christian grandma," as FIRE called Nazarene, said she was "excited" to keep representing constituents "without this complaint hanging over my head." She "clearly" has a First Amendment right to "connect directly with my constituents about important issues."

The case was otherwise headed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the perfunctory Sept. 9 dismissal of the lawsuit by U.S. District Judge Christine O'Hearn, nominated by President Biden. O'Hearn ordered Nazarene to show she even had legal standing to sue when refusing to grant a preliminary injunction this spring.

Nazarene's plight prompted bipartisan state legislation (S-4091) in May, a year after Nazarene answered the ethics complaint filed by rival school board member Sara Cobb, who resigned from the board in August this year. 

The bill would simply prohibit the School Ethics Act from being "construed to prohibit or limit a board member from speaking, including via social media, on a matter of public concern, such as a school-related matter." 

It would nullify the commission's 2022 "advisory opinion" that defines permissible "private conduct" in the law so narrowly it excludes discussing any issue the school board might consider, rendering disclaimers by school board members irrelevant.

"When we start telling elected officials they cannot speak openly with the very people they were chosen to represent, we’re not promoting ethics, we’re eroding transparency," sponsoring GOP state Sen. Declan O’Scanlon said. "In fact, we’d be better off if more elected officials engaged with their constituents without fear of crossing some vague or overreaching line."

Nothing like AG's intimidation of pro-life groups

Nazarene was less than three months into her first term when Cobb formally accused her in April 2025 of taking "private action[s] that may compromise the board" by sharing "specific and potentially misleading tax increase figures" when soliciting feedback from constituents from her Facebook page, which started as a campaign page.

The complaint prompted Nazarene to claim she was self-censoring on social media "and in other mediums on matters she otherwise would address," such as detailing her objections to the school budget, Judge O'Hearn's May injunction ruling says.

The Biden nominee dismissed any chilling effect the commission's four-year-old interpretation of the School Ethics Act might have on school board members, and expressed surprise that neither party even mentioned legal standing in their briefs.

Nazarene has not shown she "suffered an injury in fact" that was both "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent," O'Hearn wrote, noting the commission suspended her proceeding seven months in when the school board member sued.

The judge said Nazarene failed to "identify what she intends to say, to whom she intends to say it, or in what 'medium'" but for the commission's advisory opinion, which FIRE characterizes as a gag order, or even "whether she intends to use a disclaimer" – the key factor for the commission in reviewing potential violations by school board members.

The "uneven and sporadic body of enforcement history" by the commission "hardly indicates a substantial threat of future enforcement against" Nazarene, O'Hearn wrote, dismissing the relevance of commission actions against board members who "repeatedly invoked their official role," spoke in "collective terms" or "discussed internal or insider confidential matters."

The judge applauded the commission's avowed practice of evaluating school board members' social media comments under the reasonable-person standard, by which it dismissed complaints based on "posts critical of administrators, controversial policy issues, or other board members, and sometimes even in the absence of disclaimers."

The advisory opinion says nothing about whether enforcement is likely in any given case, just whether Nazarene's "intended speech here is arguably proscribed" by the School Ethics Act, which the parties "do not dispute," according to the ruling.

The commission seems no more likely to find "probable cause" and refer Nazarene to an administrative law hearing than to "dismiss the complaint outright as frivolous," O'Hearn said.

Nazarene's supplemental brief, which specified her intended speech, the unpredictability of the commission's enforcement and the length of the proceeding, doesn't change O'Hearn's mind that she can't objectively claim her speech is chilled, the judge's Sept. 9 dismissal said.

O'Hearn flatly dismissed the relevance of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling against former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin for intimidating pro-life pregnancy centers, holding they had standing to challenge his intrusive demands in federal court, because "no comparable state-initiated process exists" for the commission.

The 3rd Circuit's day-earlier ruling, that a firearms trade group can sue New Jersey to stop a civil liability law for "public nuisance" caused by gun makers, depended on several civil enforcement actions, including two lawsuits against the group's members, she said.

Just a 'general public inquiry' about matters 'tangentially related' to school board

FIRE told the New Jersey Monitor it would appeal O'Hearn's dismissal to the 3rd Circuit. Six days later, the commission portrayed the proceeding as a slam dunk for Nazarene.

No one would reasonably think Nazarene was speaking in her official capacity in her Facebook posts, even one missing a disclaimer that asked followers for their opinion if "taxes will need to be raised by 30% to keep the school open," the Sept. 22 decision says. (FIRE first publicized it Tuesday.)

"Respondent appears to be seeking information to gather public opinion on an issue tangentially related to the Board," making a "general public inquiry" at most, the commission found. 

Cobb did not show Nazarene "took any Board action to effectuate policies or plans [...] gave a direct order to school personnel, or became directly involved in functions that are the responsibility or [sic] school personnel or the day-to-day administration of the schools," the decision says, repeatedly emphasizing Nazarene spoke "in her private capacity."

Nazarene did not make "personal promises" or potentially compromise the board when she "simply asked for public opinion," the decision says. Floating theoretical tax increase amounts doesn't reveal "private budget information" or "provide inaccurate information."