NALBANDIAN, J., Circuit Judge. In 1986, Danny Hill was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Ohio state court. For 37 years, he’s been challenging his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of a panel of this Court to grant federal habeas relief. After that, we again granted habeas relief based on different reasoning, and an en banc panel of this Court vacated that opinion and denied Hill’s petition for relief. With the first petition unsuccessful, Hill has filed a second habeas petition. It’s “second or successive.” So Hill must meet the gatekeeping provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Demari Lepaul Thomas-Mathews appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). For the reasons set forth below, the Court VACATES his sentence and REMANDS for resentencing consistent with the opinion of this Court

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Youth sports are as much about instilling life lessons as they are winning and losing. Child athletes can be forgiven for occasionally losing sight of this bigger picture. But we expect more from their parents.

As this case demonstrates, those expectations are not always met. Randall McElhaney is an enthusiastic supporter of his daughter, who, when this dispute arose, was an infielder on her high school softball team. His passion, however, sometimes gets the best of him. When his daughter was benched, McElhaney sent text messages to her coach criticizing his managerial decisions. In response, school officials banned McElhaney from attending games for the next week.

A dispute over the team’s starting infield soon became much more. McElhaney filed this suit, alleging that school officials retaliated against him for criticizing his daughter’s coach, speech that McElhaney believed was shielded by the First Amendment. Defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. In their minds, McElhaney was not denied a constitutional right, let alone one that was clearly established. Reaching only the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, the district court granted defendants’ motion and entered judgment in their favor.

As we see things, it is clearly established at a low level of generality that when a school employee interacts with a student, speech by the student’s parent about those interactions enjoys First Amendment protection. On that basis, we must reverse the district court. We remand the case to resolve whether retaliation occurred in the first instance.