Equal Protection Project Supports Free Speech Rights of Public Employees at U.S. Supreme Court
There was no disruption in the provision of educational services, only people who disagreed.
On March 11, 2026, the Equal Protection Project (EPP) filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) Brief at the United States Supreme Court in Hedgepeth v. Britton, et al.
This case centers on whether public employees, like school teachers, can constitutionally be fired for speech they make while off the clock on a private social media account.
For 20 years, petitioner Jeanne Hedgepeth was a teacher at Palatine High School in Illinois.
While on summer vacation in Florida, she posted several comments on her private Facebook page criticizing political unrest following the death of George Floyd.
The school district fired Hedgepeth after administrators deemed her core protected speech “disrespectful, demeaning of other viewpoints, and racist.” In any other context, such blatant viewpoint discrimination by government officials would be a nonstarter. But because Hedgepeth is a public employee, the Seventh Circuit held that the First Amendment does not bar the government from firing her based on the views she expressed in off-the-job speech on topics unrelated to her work.
EPP made three arguments in addition to those made by Hedgepeth for why her termination was unconstitutional:
First, while the law demands a hard look at the facts for the purpose of placing speech into context, the courts below selectively devalued all facts tending to put the content of the speech into context. Not only did the the courts below ignore that Hedgepeth is an award winning teacher with a record of inclusiveness, but elevated her disciplinary record despite its irrelevance to her speech.
Second, the legal test used to justify her termination requires substantial interference in the discharge of duties and responsibilities inherent in the employee’s job, and this interference was entirely lacking here. In this case, the courts went straight to hyperbole. All of the school district, the district court, and the appeals court heard that there were people who disagreed with the content of Hedgepeth’s speech and breathlessly rushed to find that the school and district operations were thrown into “disarray.”
No one ever alleged that one child in the community lost a learning opportunity. In fact, the speech occurred over the summer and Hedgepeth was on vacation.
Third, it is a “bedrock principle” that speech may not be suppressed because some find it “offensive or disagreeable.” The facts relied upon by the courts in this case are viewpoint oriented and rely upon members of the community disagreeing with the content.
The school district received emails from people who disagreed. The school board held two public meetings to hear from members of the public who disagreed. Hedgepeth’s speech also received media coverage from outlets that disagreed.
There was no disruption in the provision of educational services, only people who disagreed. If the law allows this result, it must change to be consistent with First Amendment law.
The Court should protect public employees right to freedom of speech.
Reminder: we are a small organization going up against powerful and wealthy government and private institutions devoted to DEI discrimination. Donations are greatly needed and appreciated.
==================
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
And in doing so they were disrespectful and demeaning of other viewpoints. As for “racist”, not only was that objectively false, but the idea that it’s a bad thing is itself merely a viewpoint, and they just said one had to respect all viewpoints.
We are all for Freedom of Speech when our side is talking.
When idiots, Nazis and bigots are speaking… not so much.
But, the teachers do not have the right to indoctrinate students they are paid to teach. And, Administrators do not have the right to suppress speech under the guise of protecting it.
“But, the teachers do not have the right to indoctrinate students they are paid to teach. And, Administrators do not have the right to suppress speech under the guise of protecting it.”
Agreed, but this is not what happened here.
“Disarray” is an ongoing action, not a one-time event. That would be a disturbance. Also, the disarray is the result of third parties being offended and then writing emails and complaining. Again, that’s a disturbance because the britching and moaning was not continuous and thereby disrupting the course of business. (Besides, the Offended should be the ones sanctioned for taking the time to complain instead of working).
The Courts cannot allow conclusory statements such as disarray to form the basis for any claim — it has to be specific instances of harm that a reasonable person can agree.
Asking to understand, not to be confrontational.
How will this ruling square with issues like public employees celebrating the death of conservatives like. Charlie Kirk, suggesting that or calling for the current president be unalived, teaching personal political or sexual issues, and a host of other potential outcomes.
I agree that public employees should be able to enjoy the same free speech as everyone else.
I understand that her comment was to criticize the public unrest following GF’s little soirée, and not to criticize Floyd or other people involved in the matter.
Looking for perspective. Thanks
It appears to me that a core argument in this brief is that the school’s own rules and procedures were specific about the effects that speech must have in order to be punishable, and the courts went out of their way not to require any evidence that such effects actually ever occurred. The contracts of other classes of public employees will in general require different evidence of different effects.
Apparently, being against destructive riots is only acceptable when J6 is being discussed.
now we once again are shown that win or lose at the court levels
the school(s) are in fact on the side of blmplo
when you sign up for particular jobs you (may) give up some of your otherwise worldly/usa rights
you are in congress…you should not be able to insider trade ( a law I am against!)
you work for xyz and in your spare time you say that their product is not that good or that yyzx product is better
so does she have the right and then do THEY have the right to say
hey that doesnt fit our gamplane!! youre fired
yes they do
hmmmmmmm
b/c once again
we have ceded our rights by allowing the government to run the schools as opposed to my decades demand ( going nowheres of course) that
there be no publicly funded schools and that parents and teachers are to make a business a contractual business deal that thennn can be remedied when these issues come up
if a parent lives in this district they cant necessarily just homeschool but if it was a free market they can more easily find a different business partner /teacher who abides by their shared morality
“In any other context, such blatant viewpoint discrimination by government officials would be a nonstarter.”
Not too long ago, many in the righty-sphere (me included) cheered as wokey teachers were fired for engaging in cultural sadism by publicly cheering and applauding the murder of Charlie Kirk.
They had a 1st amendment right to do so. They didn’t have 1st amendment right not to be fired.
So where’s the fulcrum? A balance between the frivilous (you’re fired for posting ‘kittens are cute’ because that offends dog lovers!), and the sadistic (you’re fired for saying ‘I’m glad he was murdered’ because that’s inhuman!).
Most of us can make a best guess at that fulcrum point, but have little faith in wokey institutions with wokey management imposing wokey policies on all involved to have clue about anything common sense.
I guess we’re left with same old – same old: ‘send lawyers, guns, and money; the law suit has hit the fan’.
“Not too long ago, many in the righty-sphere (me included) cheered as wokey teachers were fired for engaging in cultural sadism by publicly cheering and applauding the murder of Charlie Kirk.”
Although to be fair, there are some of us who cheered not because it was a Good Idea all on its own, but because it was Democrat Rules thrown back in Democrat faces immediately following the Biden Age of Mass Cancellation.
“So where’s the fulcrum? A balance between the frivilous (you’re fired for posting ‘kittens are cute’ because that offends dog lovers!), and the sadistic (you’re fired for saying ‘I’m glad he was murdered’ because that’s inhuman!).”
I was looking for a way to state the same observation. Well done.
However the problem is that the Left perceives racism everywhere and everywhen and uses that as the “hook.” Being a racist indicates a person of “bad character” we don’t want teaching our children.
Anyone should be able to say anything no matter how offensive it is to me. (After all it is all about me). However if you’re going to shoot your mouth off then there should be no way to associate you with where you work regardless if it is a school government or private business. Sanitize your social media to remove all references to your work. At work be neutral. Period.
If you fail to do so then your place of business becomes associated albeit indirectly with what you said. They can no longer use weasel words to the effect your spewing doesn’t represent them. Sorry. They hired you. You advertised that and then you spewed. Your spew and their decision to hire and keep you as an employee are linked. (No secretary will disavow your words to paraphrase mission impossible).
Once you’ve associated your place of business with your insanity they have the right to fire you. In fact they probably have the obligation to fire you or be tainted by their association with you.
This is how it should be according to me and if followed these principals would go a long way to shutting up a lot of stupidity from assorted teachers, professors, coaches, athletes, and so on.
Agreed. If anyone can look at what you post and easily connect you to your employer then IMO it isn’t private speech. Don’t post potentially controversial statements or make vids wearing a uniform, employee badge/credential or ID your employer in your bio. Pretty simple to create another account to serve the equivalent of a ‘burner’ phone that is sanitized of any reference to your employer. Use that sanitized account and spew whatever vile, offensive or controversial crap you want but no whining if you choose to use your single account where your profile pic is you wearing a uniform or school/company shirt and a bio listing your employer. You must not drag your employer into it.