Public school teacher asks Supreme Court to protect off-campus speech
Jeanne Hedgepeth spent 20 years teaching social studies at Palatine High School outside Chicago. During her tenure, she was actively involved in creating an inclusive environment at school; she sponsored the gay-straight alliance, participated in anti-bullying initiatives, and produced a school-wide video to promote diversity.
Then, in June 2020, amid nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd, Jeanne did what everyone else was doing: She shared her thoughts online. While on summer vacation in Florida, she made several Facebook posts on her personal account. They were controversial and inflammatory. But they were made off campus and outside school hours and did not purport to speak for her employer.
Jeanne then promptly lost her job.
From Facebook to federal court
Jeanne filed a federal lawsuit alleging that her termination violated the First Amendment. The district court ruled, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, that the school’s interest in avoiding disruption outweighed Jeanne’s right to speak freely. Jeanne is now petitioning the Supreme Court to take up her case, and Pacific Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief this week supporting that effort.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has recognized that public schools have limited authority over what people say off campus. In a case involving a student’s social media post, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Court made clear that schools should be especially cautious about punishing speech that happens away from school grounds, particularly when it does not disrupt school operations.
Jeanne’s posts were made outside school hours, away from campus, using a personal device, without invoking the school’s name or authority, without students present, and while school was not in session—clearly outside the school’s regulatory sphere.
Controversy is not disruption
School officials justified punishing speech by pointing to “disruption,” citing complaints from parents, students, and members of the public. There’s no doubt that Jeanne’s posts generated controversy. But they didn’t disrupt classroom instruction—school wasn’t even in session—nor did they constitute bullying or harassment.
When public employees claim retaliation for speech, courts often apply the Pickering balancing test: the employee’s right to speak as a citizen on one side, the government’s interest in running an effective workplace on the other. But that test demands evidence of real disruption. Without it, the school is handing veto power to the angriest voices.
As PLF’s amicus brief says, allowing listener reaction to define disruption is a recipe for viewpoint discrimination: “Speech that aligns with prevailing political norms will provoke little backlash and appear nondisruptive, while speech that challenges dominant views will generate outrage and be deemed disruptive.”
Supreme Court review is needed to “confirm that Pickering does not permit public schools to delegate censorship authority to hostile audiences.”
Consequences for everyone
In a free society, speech can provoke strong reactions. It can be used to disparage, insult, and humiliate. But sacrificing freedom for the sake of civility brings graver consequences: silencing dissenting voices and discouraging honest debate. In the end, is it better to repress objectionable thinking, or to bring it into the light of day to be confronted?
In Jeanne’s case, the school decided that censorship was a worthy price to pay to avoid controversy. The district court and the Seventh Circuit upheld that decision. The Supreme Court here has an opportunity to affirm Jeanne’s right to speak for herself, regardless of who employs her.
