In today’s digital world what someone posts on social media can have real-life consequences especially for people who work in the public sector. A case involving a Massachusetts teacher named Kari MacRae shows just how complicated this issue can get when the US. Supreme Court decided on June 30, 2025, not to hear her case, it left many questions about free speech and public employment unanswered.
A Teacher’s Past Posts Spark Controversy
In 2021, Kari MacRae was hired as a math and business teacher at Hanover Public Schools in Massachusetts. But just a month into her new job she was fired. Why? The school district said it was because of several social media posts MacRae had made before she was even hired.
These posts, mostly memes she shared on TikTok included conservative views on topics like immigration, gender identity, and critical race theory. According to Justia Law, the school believed her online content could “have a significant negative impact on student learning.”
Her TikTok videos were already known in the nearby town of Bourne, where MacRae was an elected member of the local school committee. The posts had attracted media attention and sparked conversations in the community. Eventually, those discussions made their way to Hanover school officials.
Taking the Case to Court
After losing her job, MacRae filed a lawsuit claiming her First Amendment right to free speech had been violated. A federal district court ruled against her. She then appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also sided with the school district.
Both courts relied on a legal rule known as the Pickering-Garcetti test which helps judges decide whether a public employee’s speech is protected by the First Amendment.
The test has two main steps:
Was it a matter of public concern?
The courts agreed that MacRae’s TikTok posts were about public issues, not just personal complaints. That means her speech passed the first part of the test.
Does the employer’s interest outweigh the employee’s?
This is where things got tricky. The First Circuit decided the school had a “reasonable prediction of disruption.” According to Law and Crime, they believed her posts could negatively affect students and staff, especially since some had already seen the videos and news coverage.
The court said that her content might seem to go against the school’s core values, like creating “a safe learning environment based on respectful relationships,” and “respecting human differences.” Some of the posts they noted could be seen as transphobic.
The Supreme Court Declines to Step In
When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, MacRae asked them to review it. But on June 30, 2025, the Court said no. That meant the lower court decisions would stay in place.
The Supreme Court didn’t give a reason for its decision—something that’s actually pretty common. But Justice Clarence Thomas did write a seven-page statement about why he thought the lower courts may have gotten it wrong.
Justice Clarence Thomas Speaks Out
In his statement, Justice Thomas agreed with the Court’s decision not to take the case, saying MacRae’s petition didn’t clearly challenge how the First Circuit applied the legal test. Still, he voiced strong concerns.
“To start, I do not see how the tone of MacRae’s posts can bear on the weight of her First Amendment interest,” he wrote, as quoted by Legal Insurrection. He believed the lower court had “improperly discounted” her right to free speech.
Thomas also pointed out that the Supreme Court has protected speech in the past, even when it was “particularly hurtful.” He warned that if government employers are allowed to fire someone just for disagreeing with the majority view, it “undermines core First Amendment values.”
He added that courts seem to be misusing the Pickering-Garcetti test especially when it comes to controversial political opinions. According to him, they are often too quick to accept “unsupported claims of disruption” without strong evidence.
A Tense Balance Between Free Speech and Job Duties
This case has drawn attention not just because of what happened to Kari MacRae, but because it raises big questions for anyone who works in the public sector. What happens when your personal opinions clash with your workplace? Can something you post online—even before you’re hired—cost you your job?
For now, the courts say that public employees can be disciplined if their speech threatens to disrupt the workplace or contradicts the values of their employer. And in schools, where the environment is meant to be inclusive and safe for all students the line between protected speech and harmful expression can be very thin.
As Justice Thomas suggested the Court may have to look at these issues again in the future. But for now, Kari MacRae’s case stands as a clear example of the limits placed on free speech for public employees—and the tough choices courts have to make when personal rights and professional duties collide.
