Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case Over Student’s Controversial Gender Shirt

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up the appeal of a Massachusetts student who challenged his school district’s decision to prohibit him from wearing a shirt stating, “There are only two genders.”

The case, which stirred debate over free speech and student expression in schools, leaves in place lower court rulings that sided with the Middleborough school district. The courts previously determined that the district’s decision did not violate the student’s First Amendment rights.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court’s conservative members, said they would have revisited the case, suggesting that lower courts may have applied the wrong standards when interpreting the Constitution’s free speech protections.

“If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like gender identity or related topics, then the school must also be willing to tolerate dissenting views from students,” Alito wrote in an opinion joined by Thomas.

The case stems from an incident in 2023 involving a Middleborough middle school student, identified in court documents as L.M. because he is a minor. According to court filings, L.M. was asked to remove his shirt after school administrators determined it violated dress code policies aimed at maintaining a respectful and inclusive learning environment.

The student’s guardians, Christopher and Susan Morrison, filed suit against the district, arguing that the decision violated L.M.’s constitutional rights. Represented by the legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, the Morrisons claimed that their son’s shirt constituted protected political speech under the landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

That case famously upheld the right of students to wear black armbands protesting the Vietnam War, establishing that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

The Morrisons argued that their son’s shirt similarly expressed a personal viewpoint on a matter of public debate and that the school’s action amounted to censorship based on ideology.

“It gives schools a blank check to suppress unpopular political or religious views,” the family’s petition stated. “This interpretation allows administrators to silence speech based on subjective claims of psychological harm, turning the First Amendment on its head.”

Attorneys for the Middleborough school district, however, countered that the restriction was justified and consistent with the principles set out in Tinker. They argued that the shirt disrupted the educational environment and negatively affected other students, particularly those grappling with gender identity issues.

In their court filings, district officials said that administrators at Nichols Middle School were concerned about maintaining the well-being of all students. They cited the “young age” of students, the “severe mental health challenges” faced by some gender-nonconforming pupils, and previous instances of harassment and self-harm involving transgender students in other districts.

The school maintained that its actions were not an attempt to silence political speech but a necessary step to prevent disruption and protect vulnerable students.

While the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case effectively upholds the lower courts’ rulings, Justices Thomas and Alito suggested that the issue may soon return to the Court in another form. Both justices emphasized that as public schools increasingly address social topics in the classroom, questions about students’ rights to express dissenting views are likely to persist.

The Court’s decision came amid growing national attention to how schools handle speech related to gender identity, sexuality, and related issues. Across the country, parents, educators, and lawmakers have clashed over the boundaries of student expression and the responsibilities of schools to maintain inclusive environments.

Though the Court declined to revisit this particular case, it has already agreed to hear another major case this term involving transgender rights — a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors. That case could have sweeping implications for similar laws in nearly half of U.S. states.

A decision in that matter is expected by early summer.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court made headlines last week in a separate issue involving government transparency. Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay that temporarily blocked lower court orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency — a federal agency created by President Donald Trump — to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests related to an ongoing lawsuit.

The stay gives the agency additional time to argue its case before the Court. Roberts did not explain his decision, leaving observers to speculate about the reasoning behind the delay.

As the Supreme Court continues to weigh politically and socially charged cases this term, its refusal to hear the Massachusetts student’s appeal underscores the ongoing challenge of balancing individual free speech rights with efforts to promote safety and inclusivity in public schools.