Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mary Catherine Roper
Mary Catherine Roper
Mary Catherine Roper
Background: Roper is deputy legal director at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, she has been here for
10 years. Her focus is on “a broad range of civil liberties issues, including freedom of speech,
religious liberty, racial and ethnic justice, equality for lesbians and gay men, student rights,
privacy, prisoners’ rights, and police misconduct” (ACLU Pennsylvania). Roper was a partner at
Drinker Biddle and Reath law firm, she is a graduate of Bryn Mawr College and the University
of Pennsylvania Law School. Roper clerked for Anita B. Brody in the United States District
Relevance: Roper specializes on many civil liberties issues. This includes freedom of speech and
student rights. Roper provided legal insight about the McCloud v. Hobson case in an interview
by the Associated Press: “‘Students can say whatever they want. They just can't say it in the
school's paper,’ Mary Catherine Roper, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties
Union of Pennsylvania, told Geli. School resources are employed to publish the newspaper, and
the newspaper is affiliated with the school, so whatever is published is perceived as the school's
speech, Roper said” (Associated Press). Roper’s legal background allows her to tie the case back
to the constitution and civil liberties. As an expert in civil liberties, she can speak on the issue of
“prior restraint”. “In First Amendment law, a prior restraint is government action that prohibits
speech or other expression before it can take place. There are two common forms of prior
restraints. The first is a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license
before speaking…” (Cornell Law School). In this case prior restraint is legal because Hobson,
the principle of Elizabethtown High School, was legally able to halt the publication of Mr.
Testimony: Ms. Roper said in an interview with the Associated Press that "Students can say
whatever they want. They just can't say it in the school's paper" (Associated Press). With this in
mind Roper will reiterate what principle Hobson will say regarding how the paper uses school
resources to publish their paper. Roper will also bring up that whatever the paper publishes will
reflect on the school’s image and reflect on principle Hobson. Because of this Hobson has the
right to censor items that could shine a light on the school that does not support the schools
values. Roper will direct the jury’s attention to the matter of “stirring the pot”, reiterating how
the publication of both statements would cause a clear disruption to the school community.
Roper will then direct attention to how this is does not comply with the Pennsylvania
administrative code. The Pennsylvania Administrative Code: Student Rights and Responsibilities
states in Section 12.9. Freedom of expression: “Students shall have the right to express
themselves unless the expression materially and substantially interferes with the educational
process, threatens serious harm to the school or community, encourages unlawful activity or
interferes with another individual's rights” (Student Press Law Center). Roper will explain why
what the students did violated the code by explaining that the paper’s publications would have
“substantially [interfered] with the educational process” and “[threatened] serious harm to the
school or community”. Finally, Roper will close with a reminder to the jury and judge that what
Hobson did was neither right nor wrong, but it was legal.
Works Cited
roundup-20180228-story.html.
pennsylvania-administrative-code-student-rights-and-responsibilities.
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint.