Supreme Court Declines Review In Case Involving Teacher Fired Over Disruptive Facebook Posts

In August 2025, we reported on a victory for Township High School District 211 in former teacher Jeanne Hedgepeth’s case challenging her dismissal over divisive comments posted on her social media account. (School District Wins Appeal in Teacher’s First Amendment Challenge)

Following the Seventh Circuit’s ruling, Hedgepeth petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to review and overturn the Seventh Circuit’s ruling. Hedgepeth retained former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement to lead the certiorari effort, a signal of the significance attributed to the case by those challenging the ruling. Seven amicus curiae groups filed briefs in support of the petition, urging the Court to overturn Hedgepeth’s dismissal and find that her speech was protected by the First Amendment.

On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the petition. This is not a ruling on the merits by the Supreme Court, but it does mean that District 211’s victory — and the legal framework the Seventh Circuit applied — stands as binding precedent in the Seventh Circuit, at least for now.

Franczek attorneys Bill Pokorny and Sally Scott led Franczek’s team for District 211 throughout the litigation, partnering with the Supreme Court and Appellate attorneys at Orrick, led by Robert Loeb, to prepare the brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari.

What This Means for School Districts

The conclusion of this litigation reinforces a critical lesson for school districts navigating employee speech and discipline: documentation of actual disruption is essential. The Seventh Circuit’s decision turned in significant part on the concrete disruptions caused by Hedgepeth’s social media posts — student, staff and community complaints, media coverage,  and the erosion of her effectiveness as a classroom teacher. The high-profile appeal effort, supported by seven amicus groups and led by one of the nation’s most prominent appellate advocates, underscores that First Amendment challenges to teacher discipline will continue to be vigorously litigated.

When districts are considering disciplinary action connected to employee speech, administrators should be diligent in identifying, recording, and preserving evidence of actual disruption — including parent, student and community complaints, staff concerns, impacts on instruction, and media attention. Conclusory assertions that speech was disruptive are not sufficient; the record must reflect specific, documented consequences. Building that record from the outset of an investigation, rather than reconstructing it later in litigation, is the foundation of a defensible disciplinary decision.