In a decision that underscores the ongoing national debate over free speech and LGBTQ+ rights in educational settings, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of a Massachusetts student who was prohibited from wearing a T-shirt stating “There Are Only Two Genders” at his middle school. The Court’s refusal leaves in place a lower court ruling that sided with the school’s decision to ban the shirt, citing concerns over its impact on transgender and gender-nonconforming students.
The case centers on Liam Morrison, who was a seventh-grader at John T. Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, when he wore the controversial T-shirt to school in March 2023. School officials asked Morrison to remove the shirt, stating that it violated the school’s dress code, which prohibits clothing that targets groups based on gender identity. After Morrison refused, he was sent home. He later returned wearing a modified version of the shirt with the words “Only Two” covered by tape reading “Censored,” which was also deemed unacceptable by the school.
Morrison’s family filed a lawsuit, arguing that the school’s actions infringed upon his First Amendment rights. However, both a federal district court and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school’s decision. The appeals court concluded that the T-shirt could be reasonably seen as demeaning to transgender students and could potentially disrupt the educational environment, referencing the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which allows schools to restrict student speech that causes substantial disruption.
In dissenting opinions, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed concern over the implications for student free speech rights. Justice Alito wrote that the case presented “an issue of great importance for our Nation’s youth” and questioned whether schools could suppress student speech based on vague concerns about its impact on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case means the lower court’s ruling stands, allowing schools to continue enforcing dress codes that prohibit messages perceived as targeting or demeaning to specific groups. This outcome is particularly significant amid broader national discussions about the rights of LGBTQ+ students and the extent of free speech protections in schools.
For the LGBTQ+ community and allies, the ruling is seen as a reinforcement of efforts to create inclusive and safe educational environments for all students. It acknowledges the potential harm that certain messages can have on marginalized groups and supports the authority of schools to take proactive measures in preventing such harm.
