A Mississippi cheerleader is raising awareness about an unpredictable autoimmune disorder.

Alopecia may have taken Bella Daniels’ hair, but not her spirit. The 10-year-old has worked hard to be one of the top girls, the ones lifted into the air on her cheer team, Pink Army Reloaded.

"When I first started, I was at the bottom, and this really heavy girl was standing on my knee, so I hated it. I did not like it at all," Bella said.

Cheering on two teams and balancing school is a lot for Bella, but this year brought a new challenge.

"At first, my brother noticed a spot on the top of my head, or something, and we thought nothing of it," Bella said. "We thought someone stepped on my hair at cheer, or something."

But soon it was clear that Bella’s long, thick, beautiful hair was thinning fast.

"Then we went to the dermatologist and they diagnosed me," Bella said.

The dermatologist diagnosed Bella with alopecia.

"What she has is not contagious. It’s an autoimmune disease that attacks the hair follicles. It thinks that it’s a virus," said Bella’s mother, Robyn Daniels.

Robyn said alopecia isn’t exactly rare – 6.8 million people have some form – but it’s different for everyone. Bella’s doctor didn’t think she would lose all of her hair, but by January, she had.

"It was horrible. I hid it from her. I cried. As a mom, I wanted to fix it, and I knew there wasn’t anything I could do to fix it," Robyn Daniels said.

Robyn worried Bella would be made fun of, ostracize, or just feel sad that she looked different.

"I'd be like, 'Baby, you know you’re going to lose the rest of your hair. Are you OK with that?' She’d be like, 'mmhm,'" Robyn Daniels said.

Soon, Bella lost her eyebrows and eyelashes, too. And to Robyn Daniels' relief and amazement, Bella took it in stride.

"It wasn’t that bad, but sometimes in school I’d feel something on my back and it would be a handful of hair. Sometimes I got nervous, but not a lot," Bella said.

Bella’s cheer coach, Jordan Hall, said she came to him privately after her diagnosis.

"Last year, Bella came to me and said, 'Coach Jordan, am I not going to be able to cheer if I lose my hair?' And so, for me, that was like we all stopped and remind these kids what cheering is all about, and what teamwork is all about," he said. "I'll tell you, I haven't seen Bella miss a beat. She hasn't let this thing get to her at all. Hair, no hair. She doesn't care."

"She has never shed a tear. She has never asked why, and when you ask her, 'Are you ready for your hair to grow back?' She says, ‘It will be in God’s time,'" Robyn Daniels said.

Bella said she doesn’t consider herself to be a role model. Her mother disagrees.

"That’s why we wanted to do this: to bring awareness to alopecia. Most people we meet ask, 'What kind of cancer does she have?'" Robyn Daniels said.

Robyn Daniels said the teasing she worried about hasn’t happened. Bella’s friends, school and community have rallied around her. She gets starts, so many that her mother bought her an "Alopecia Awareness" shirt.

Bella will try some new treatments this year that might help her regrow her hair, but either way, she’s OK.

"I really don’t care what happens because I’m still me," Bella said.

Bella’s dermatologist appointments weren’t covered by insurance, so her gym family at Jam Athletics banded together and raised money for their bills and to buy a wig for Bella. She wore it for a while, but it was hot and uncomfortable and made her feel more self-conscious, so for now, she uses it for TikTok videos.

Watch the video above for the full story.

The Supreme Court announced its decisions on four more cases Wednesday as the court's term draws to a close. Eight cases remain to be decided. Take a look below at a breakdown of the cases.

Free Speech

The Supreme Court ruled that a Pennsylvania public school wrongly suspended a cheerleader over a vulgar social media post she made after she didn't qualify for the varsity team.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of Brandi Levy, who was a 14-year-old high school freshman when she expressed her disappointment over not making the varsity cheerleading squad on Snapchat with a string of curse words and a raised middle finger.

Levy, of Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, was not in school when she made her post, but she was suspended from cheerleading activities for a year anyway. In an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the high court ruled that the suspension violated Levy's First Amendment rights.

But the justices did not foreclose schools from disciplining students for what they say off campus. An earlier federal appeals court ruling in this case would have barred public schools from punishing off-campus speech.

Breyer wrote that “we do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus. The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances.”

The case arose from Levy's posts, one of which pictured her and a friend with raised middle fingers and repeated use of a vulgarity to complain that she had been left off the varsity cheerleading squad.

"[Expletive] school [expletive] softball [expletive] cheer [expletive] everything,” she wrote near the end of her freshman year. Now 18, Levy recently finished her first year of college.

Levy's parents filed a federal lawsuit after the cheerleading coach suspended her from the junior varsity team for a year. Lower courts ruled in Levy's favor, and she was reinstated.

Labor law

The court sided with California agriculture businesses in their challenge to a state regulation that gives unions access to farm property in order to organize workers. As a result of the ruling, California will have to modify or abandon the regulation put in place in 1975 after the efforts of labor leader Cesar Chavez.

The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines for the agriculture businesses. It's another potential setback for unions as a result of a high court decision.

"The access regulation amounts to simple appropriation of private property," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the conservative members of the court.

At issue was a regulation that granted unions access to farms and other agriculture businesses for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, in order to organize workers. Businesses are supposed to be notified before organizers arrive, and organizers are supposed to come during nonwork times such as lunch and before and after work.

The businesses that brought the case to the court argued that California’s regulation was unconstitutional, but was also outdated and unnecessary given that unions can now reach workers many ways, including via smartphone and radio.

Limit on warrants

The high court put limits on when police officers pursuing a fleeing suspect can enter a home without a warrant.

The justices ruled that when officers are pursuing someone suspected of a misdemeanor, a less serious crime, they cannot always enter a home without a warrant if a suspect enters.

The court had previously said that police in “hot pursuit” of a suspect believed to have committed a more serious crime, a felony, can enter a home without a warrant.

The case the justices decided Wednesday is important both to law enforcement and to groups concerned about privacy.

"The flight of a suspected misdemeanant does not always justify a warrantless entry into a home. An officer must consider all the circumstances in a pursuit case to determine whether there is a law enforcement emergency. On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter — to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home. But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so — even though the misdemeanant fled," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court.

The case before the justices involved California resident Arthur Lange. One evening in 2016, an officer saw Lange driving his station wagon in Sonoma County, playing music loudly and honking his horn several times. The officer believed those were noise violations punishable by small fines and followed Lange. The officer later turned on his car’s lights to get Lange to stop. But Lange continued driving for about four seconds, turned into his driveway and entered his garage without stopping.

The officer got out of his car and, as Lange’s garage door was closing, stuck his foot under the door so it would re-open. Lange was ultimately arrested after the officer smelled alcohol on his breath, and he was charged with driving under the influence as well as an excessive noise offense.

Mortgage overseer structure ruled unconstitutional

WASHINGTON — Every spring the Supreme Court seems to find itself in the headlines with consequential rulings on the horizon.

This spring is no different.

Over the coming weeks, major cases impacting various aspects of American life are poised for rulings.

HEALTH CARE CHALLENGE

One of the biggest outstanding cases involves the Affordable Care Act.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that it was constitutional, but this is a new challenge.

This challenge was brought by conservatives who believe the last ruling was only ruled constitutional because the Supreme Court interpreted the law as a tax.

Congress has since removed tax penalties from the law and therefore critics believe justices now have grounds to strike down the entire law.

Constitutional experts have argued this stands little chance of taking place, however the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett has left some wondering: "just how conservative has the Court become?"

LGBTQ RIGHTS

A big case involving LGBTQ rights and religious rights will get a ruling, too.

This case is out of Philadelphia where the city suspended its relationship with Catholic Social Services over the organization's policy of not allowing LGBTQ parents to adopt.

The organization has cited the Catholic Church's teachings on gay marriage, while the city says it violates anti-discrimination laws.

This case will impact religious rights and LGBTQ rights.

VOTING RIGHTS

Justices are expected to rule on two voting laws out of Arizona involving in-person voting and whether votes cast in different precincts can count. Additionally, justices are looking into who can return an absentee ballot.

This case will potentially impact voting rules and regulations across the country.

The case could also set the tone for future voting challenges.

A number of liberal organizations have filed lawsuits in recent weeks against new voting laws signed by conservative governors.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in a case involving a Pennsylvania cheerleader and vulgar comments she made on social media.

After not making the varsity cheerleading squad, the teenager took to social media where her language got her suspended from the team.

This case looks at whether after school, online comments by students can warrant in-school suspensions or discipline.

Since this case was just heard, it will likely be several weeks before a ruling.

POSSIBLE RETIREMENT?

It's also possible President Joe Biden gets his first Supreme Court pick in the coming weeks.

That is because many progressives are calling on Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal justice who is 82 years old, to step down.

The calls are not based on rulings, but rather on his age and the desire by Democrats to replace Breyer with another liberal justice while Biden is in the White House and Democrats control the Senate.

Breyer has so far made no indication he plans to step down.