I really can't understand this at all:

The Supreme Court this week refused to hear the case of a teenage girl who was kicked off her cheerleading team after refusing to cheer for the boy who sexually assaulted her. As a result, she now owes the school $45,000 in legal fees. The girl, known only as MS, accused a fellow student of raping her at a party. He plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge to avoid jail time and was allowed to return to school and the basketball team. She continued to cheer for the team during games, but refused to shout the boy's name or clap for him when he shot free throws. When the superintendent discovered what she was doing, she was kicked off the team. She sued the Texas school, arguing that her free speech rights had been violated, but two courts ruled that as a cheerleader she speaks for the school, not herself, and did not have the right to refuse.

Are you kidding me? Look, I get that the rules are different for minors and students. But imagine that teenage girl is your daughter. She was sexually assaulted, for the love of everything holy. Where the hell is the sensitivity from the school and the superintendent in the first place? Why was the boy allowed to rejoin the basketball team? Why were the extenuating circumstances not taken into consideration before the girl was kicked off the cheerleading squad?

I know it's pretty standard to make the losing side to pay the other's court costs. But in this case, a teenage girl is being held to pay her school $45,000 for kicking her off the squad for refusing to cheer for her rapist. What kind of perversion of justice is this?