US Supreme Court Declines Free Speech Case of Fired Teacher

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of Kari MacRae, a Massachusetts public school teacher who sued for alleged First Amendment violations after being fired due to controversial social media activity. MacRae had been hired as a math and business teacher by Hanover Public Schools in 2021 but was dismissed within a month after school officials discovered multiple past TikTok posts that they deemed offensive. The posts, shared prior to her employment, included memes and videos with themes perceived as anti-trans, anti-race, and anti-critical race theory. The school district argued that retaining MacRae would negatively affect student learning, referencing posts such as one mocking transgender official Rachel Levine and another suggesting gender identity debates shouldn't be part of public education. MacRae’s posts were connected to her public stance during a previous school board campaign. Despite arguing that these were protected personal political opinions made before her job started, lower courts sided with the school. They cited a 1968 Supreme Court ruling, which allows limitations on public employee speech if it risks disrupting the workplace. Both the federal district judge and the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the school district had sufficient justification to fire her and that officials were protected by qualified immunity, shielding them from liability. This legal protection, paired with the court’s prior free speech precedent, led the courts to dismiss her claims, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.

MacRae, who is currently running as a Republican candidate for the Massachusetts state Senate, insisted that her firing was politically motivated and violated her right to free expression. She maintained that the court's previous 1968 precedent about employee speech should not apply to her because she made the posts before becoming an employee at Hanover Public Schools. Her argument centered on the idea that individuals should not be punished professionally for lawful expression made during private time before employment. Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. While no justice publicly dissented from the decision, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a separate opinion. He agreed with rejecting MacRae’s appeal but expressed concern over how public employers might be using free speech rules to target employees for expressing politically unpopular views. Thomas suggested that he hopes to revisit these kinds of First Amendment issues in the future, signaling that this area of law may yet evolve. The case illustrates the ongoing national debate around free speech, political expression, and public sector employment. It also highlights how schools and government bodies are increasingly balancing concerns over inclusive environments with the rights of individuals to express personal views online. Although MacRae’s legal challenge has ended, her case may influence future legal interpretations involving speech, employment, and political beliefsparticularly in education settings where content shared on social media continues to spark legal and ethical debate.

See also: Wall Street Hits Record Highs Amid US-Canada Trade Optimism