Meinhold v. Taylor Et Al.

Background

A public school teacher in Nevada, who taught seven years in the Clark County system and five years at his junior high, was told in March 1971 that his contract would not be renewed. A professional review committee and the school board upheld the dismissal based solely on allegations about his views on the State’s compulsory-attendance laws. He had been quoted saying schools are bad for children, but he never expressed those views in class and was not accused of urging students to skip school.

Reasoning

The key practical question was whether a teacher’s off-duty statements, here to his own children, could justify losing his job. The Nevada Supreme Court concluded that by expressing his opposition to compulsory attendance to his daughters, he had forfeited his right to continued employment. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision, so it did not resolve the constitutional argument. A dissenting Justice argued that prior decisions protect teachers’ speech on public issues and would have heard the case.

Real world impact

Because the high Court refused to review the case, the state ruling stands. That leaves intact a state-level finding that statements to family members about compulsory attendance can be a basis for nonrenewal. The national law on whether off-duty family speech can justify dismissal remains unsettled at the Supreme Court level and could change if the Court agrees to hear a similar case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented from the refusal to review and argued the Court should hear the constitutional free-speech question described above.