U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove issued a preliminary injunction on Thursday in the ACLU Elizabeth Jones lawsuit, ordering the Jenkins Independent School District to stop enforcing its no-trespass order against Elizabeth Jones. The ruling lets Jones keep access to district property while the case continues.
The court required Jones to post a $100 bond within 10 days. Van Tatenhove said the order is temporary and does not decide the lawsuit’s final outcome.
Jones and Jenkins
Jones, who owns the Hillbilly Crime social media channels, sued after the district banned her from all district property and school-sponsored events in December 2025. The district later modified the order so she could drop off and pick up her children, attend parent-teacher conferences and school board meetings, but she remained barred from athletic events and other school activities.
Van Tatenhove wrote that Jones’ posts were “mean and demeaning” but protected by the First Amendment. He also wrote, “The law is clear: The First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions for engaging in protected speech, and this speech is protected.”
Facebook posts and the ban
The district said the ban stemmed from Facebook posts criticizing student athletes and from alleged disruptions to the educational process. Van Tatenhove said the district’s own filings acknowledged that the ban was imposed because of Jones’ social media activity. He wrote, “It is undisputed that the bans would not have occurred but for Jones’ social media posts, which are a form of protected speech unreachable by the school district as a governmental body.”
The judge found Jones is likely to prevail on her First Amendment retaliation claim and wrote that the district’s actions would likely discourage an ordinary person from exercising free speech. He also wrote that “the loss of First Amendment rights, even for minimal periods of time, constitutes irreparable harm.”
Temporary relief in London, Ky.
The injunction gives Jones relief now, but it does not end the case. The underlying constitutional claims will continue to be litigated in U.S. District Court, with the dispute still centered on whether the district punished her for protected speech rather than merely controlling access to school property.
For Jones, the immediate change is practical: the no-trespass order cannot be enforced while the injunction stands, and the district must treat her access under the court’s order rather than the ban it issued in December 2025.
