Supreme Court Declines to Hear Student's Free Speech Case Over 'Only Two Genders' T-Shirt

Tone & Political Bias: Weakly Left-Leaning

Why: The article emphasizes the protection of transgender and gender-nonconforming students' rights, aligning with progressive perspectives on inclusivity and anti-discrimination.

Case Overview

On May 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Liam Morrison, a Massachusetts middle school student who was barred from wearing a T-shirt that read “There are only two genders” at John T. Nichols Middle School in Middleborough.

The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that supported the school’s action, citing potential disruption and harm to transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

Background

In March 2023, then-seventh-grader Liam Morrison wore the T-shirt to school, expressing a personal belief about gender identity. School officials asked him to remove the shirt, saying that it was offensive to some students. When he declined, he was sent home. Later, he returned with a modified shirt that read “There are [censored] genders,” which the school also deemed inappropriate.

Legal Proceedings

Morrison’s family filed a lawsuit, arguing that the school had violated his First Amendment right to free speech. However, both the federal district court and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school. The courts concluded that the message on the T-shirt could create a negative learning environment and potentially harm the mental well-being of transgender and gender-diverse students.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case means the ruling of the appeals court remains in effect. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision. Justice Alito argued that the school appeared to support messages affirming multiple gender identities but censored those expressing disagreement, raising concerns about viewpoint discrimination.

He emphasized the need for clarity on whether public schools can limit speech simply because it offends or contradicts widely accepted views on campus.

Implications

The court’s refusal to hear the case leaves unresolved legal questions about the extent of students’ free speech rights within school environments, particularly when the speech involves contentious social topics like gender identity. The case reflects the broader national debate over balancing individual expression with school responsibilities to maintain safe and inclusive learning spaces.