The U.S. Supreme Court declined on June 30 to hear the case of Kari MacRae, a Massachusetts math and business teacher who was fired by Hanover Public Schools over social media posts made before her employment that school officials labeled offensive. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement warning that public employers could misuse precedent to punish unpopular speech.
MacRae’s posts, shared in 2021, included memes mocking transgender individuals and criticizing critical race theory. Dartmouth officials deemed them disruptive enough to justify her termination shortly after hiring. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court upheld the dismissal, applying the 1968 free‑speech framework that balances an employee’s expression against employer interest in workplace harmony.
Justice Thomas agreed with the denial of review but criticized the lower courts’ use of the Pickering‑Garcetti balance test when applied to pre‑employment speech. He emphasized that controversial or satirical expression can still address public‑concern issues and should not be so easily devalued. Thomas further voiced his intent to clarify in future cases that public employers must not rely on vague disruption claims to suppress politically unpopular views.
This decision comes as the court tightens its support for free‑speech rights in public employment. A companion case involving a student bullied over wearing a MAGA hat was also declined. Both denials reflect the court’s hesitance to apply First Amendment protections without clearer judicial guidance.
The denial leaves MacRae’s termination lawfully intact, with no Supreme Court ruling to challenge the current framework. However, Thomas’s statement keeps the door open for refining legal protections for employees and job candidates whose speech predates hire date.
