Supreme Court denies appeal from teacher Kari MacRae, who was fired over conservative social media posts, as Justice Thomas warns the decision undermines First Amendment protections for educators nationwide.
Key Takeaways
- Teacher Kari MacRae was fired after posting conservative views on TikTok about transgender issues and immigration before her employment began at Hanover Public Schools.
- The Supreme Court declined to hear her First Amendment case, with Justice Clarence Thomas criticizing lower courts for misapplying free speech precedents.
- MacRae’s legal team at Judicial Watch argued the termination violated her constitutional rights, calling the Court’s refusal “a missed opportunity.”
- The case highlights growing tensions between educators’ personal speech rights and institutional control over employee expression.
Teacher Fired Over Conservative Social Media Posts
In what many conservatives view as another blow to free speech rights, the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of Kari MacRae, a Massachusetts teacher who claims she was terminated over social media posts expressing conservative viewpoints. MacRae posted content on TikTok addressing controversial topics including transgenderism and immigration before she began working at Hanover Public Schools. The school district subsequently fired her, claiming her personal views expressed online violated their conduct policies, despite the posts predating her employment.
MacRae’s case raises significant questions about whether public employees, particularly educators, can be fired for expressing political opinions on their personal social media accounts. The Court’s refusal to address this case leaves unresolved tensions between institutional policy and constitutional rights that affect teachers nationwide. With schools increasingly monitoring staff social media activity, conservative educators face growing pressure to self-censor their political expression or risk professional consequences.
Justice Thomas Signals Concern Over First Amendment Erosion
While the Supreme Court as a whole declined to hear MacRae’s case, Justice Clarence Thomas took the unusual step of criticizing lower court decisions in the matter. Thomas expressed serious concerns that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had misapplied established First Amendment precedents, effectively devaluing MacRae’s constitutional speech protections. His statement suggests growing judicial unease about how lower courts handle cases involving controversial conservative speech by public employees.
“The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear arguments in a case involving a teacher who claims she was fired over social media posts expressing her views on transgenderism, immigration, and other controversial issues,” said Justice Clarence Thomas.
The Supreme Court typically uses a balancing test established in prior decisions to weigh public employees’ First Amendment rights against government interests in workplace efficiency and student safety. MacRae’s legal strategy involved arguing this test shouldn’t apply to her situation – a risky approach that would have required overturning established precedent. This legal strategy likely contributed to the Court’s decision not to hear the case, though it doesn’t diminish the concerning implications for teacher speech rights.
Legal Advocacy and Political Implications
Judicial Watch, the conservative legal organization representing MacRae, expressed profound disappointment with the Court’s decision not to hear the case. Tom Fitton, the organization’s president, characterized the situation as a troubling precedent that further erodes constitutional protections for teachers who express views outside progressive orthodoxy. This case represents part of a broader pattern where conservative speech faces increasing institutional restrictions while progressive viewpoints are often encouraged in educational settings.
“The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up her case is a missed opportunity to uphold the First Amendment,” said Tom Fitton
MacRae herself has channeled her experience into political activism, having run twice for the Massachusetts state Senate. Though unsuccessful in previous campaigns, she plans to run again in 2026, using her personal story of alleged viewpoint discrimination to highlight broader free speech concerns. Her case exemplifies the growing tensions between traditional values and progressive institutional policies that many conservatives face in public employment sectors, particularly education, where viewpoint diversity increasingly faces institutional resistance.
