Two Words, One Nation Divided: The Case the Court Wouldn’t Touch
Supreme Court Lets Student’s “There Are Only Two Genders” T-Shirt Ban Stand
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review a case involving a Massachusetts middle school student who was prohibited from wearing a T‑shirt that stated: “There are only two genders.” With that refusal, the lower courts’ rulings in favor of the school remain in effect.
What Happened
In 2023, a seventh‑grade student at Nichols Middle School, part of the Middleborough, Massachusetts district, wore a T‑shirt to school declaring “There are only two genders.” The student, identified in legal documents only by initials, said he wanted to express his view that biological sex and gender are the same, and that there are only two sexes—male and female.
School administrators asked the student to remove the shirt. He refused. Instead, his father picked him up from school. Later, the student tried again, wearing an altered version of the shirt: the words “only two” were covered with tape marked “censored.” The school again barred him from wearing it in class.
Why the School Took Action
The school’s dress code prohibits clothing that contains hate speech or imagery targeting groups defined by gender identity, sexual orientation, and other protected categories. The school argued that the T‑shirt violated this rule.
Officials cited concerns about other students, including transgender and gender‑nonconforming peers, who might feel demeaned or emotionally harmed by the message. Administrators also raised concerns about the potential for disruption in class—both in terms of student focus and mental health.
What the Courts Decided
A federal district court in Massachusetts ruled that the school’s actions were lawful. That ruling was upheld by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court agreed with the school district’s position that it was reasonable to expect that the message displayed throughout the school day could harm transgender or gender‑nonconforming students and interfere with learning.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices declined to hear the appeal, which means the decision by the Circuit Court remains valid nationwide under that jurisdiction.
Dissent From the Bench
Two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case. They argued that the case raises important questions about free speech—specifically whether schools can suppress speech they disagree with simply on the grounds that it may offend or make some students uncomfortable.
Justice Alito expressed concern that lower courts may be confusing or ignoring long‑established precedents, such as the Tinker v. Des Moines decision from 1969, which protects student speech unless it would substantially disrupt school operations. Alito warned that without higher court guidance, schools could too easily censor viewpoints they find objectionable or controversial.
Broader Implications
Because the Supreme Court declined the case, the legal requirement remains: schools in the First Circuit may continue to enforce restrictions similar to those in this case, so long as they can show the speech at issue might harm other students or disrupt the school environment.
This case touches on the ongoing national debate over how far free speech should extend in schools, especially when speech involves issues of gender identity or other sensitive topics. It draws the line between an individual’s right to express a viewpoint and a school’s duty to protect students from speech that may be seen by some as harassing, hateful, or emotionally damaging.
What’s Next
With the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear this case, the lower court’s decision will stand—at least for now. The student’s legal challenge ends for practical purposes unless the case is revisited through some future decision that reshapes or overturns the precedent. In the meantime, this ruling becomes a reference point for how schools can regulate student speech about gender identity.
Also pending before the Supreme Court are related but broader cases, including ones that address transgender rights, gender‑affirming medical care for minors, and how public policy treats gender identity in various legal settings. Rulings in those areas may have wider effects and could potentially influence how cases like this are decided in other parts of the country.
This decision underscores the continuing tension between protecting free expression and maintaining school environments where all students feel safe and respected. The outcome is a reminder that, when it comes to student speech, the courts often draw complex lines — balancing rights, responsibilities, and the emotional welfare of peers in the classroom.