Supreme Court‌ Declines to Hear “Two Genders” T-Shirt Free Speech Case

​ Updated⁤ May 27,2025

The Supreme court has ⁢declined to hear ‍a case concerning ⁣a middle school student’s right to wear a T-shirt stating,”There are only two genders.” The⁢ decision effectively upholds a lower court ruling that ‌allows schools to enforce dress​ codes‍ aimed at protecting students from what is considered “hate speech” or bullying.

The denial of the ⁣case, which drew two dissenting opinions, means the court ​will not weigh in on the extent⁣ to which schools can limit⁣ student free expression to safeguard other students⁤ from ‍potentially offensive or harmful messages. This decision comes after several months of ‍internal deliberation among the justices.

Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, initiated the case after facing ‍disciplinary action for ‍wearing the T-shirt. Morrison⁢ stated his action was a⁣ response ⁣to his‌ school’s promotion of Pride Month. he was twice sent home—once⁢ for the original shirt ‌and again after taping the word “censored” over ‌the message.

justice Samuel A.⁣ Alito Jr., joined ⁣by Justice Clarence Thomas, voiced a strong dissent. Alito wrote that the case presents ​a ⁤critical question: “whether⁣ public schools ​may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint ​the schools disfavor.” His dissent spanned 14 pages.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal group, ⁣represented Morrison. The ADF has previously secured⁢ free-speech ⁣victories, including cases​ involving a cake maker and a‍ website designer who refused to participate in same-sex weddings.

The case emerged shortly after‌ the⁢ previous president ‌issued an executive order‌ directing the U.S. government to recognize only two sexes, male and female.

Lower courts ⁣have generally supported schools’ authority​ to impose ‌speech restrictions. For example, in 2006, the ⁣9th Circuit⁢ Court upheld a school’s decision ​to prohibit a student from wearing a T-shirt with an anti-homosexual message.

School officials defended their ‌actions by citing⁢ policies against bullying and a dress code prohibiting clothing that conveys hate speech targeting specific groups.

A federal⁣ judge in Boston sided with the ​school, ⁤asserting that the T-shirt “invaded the rights of the other students to ‌a safe and secure educational surroundings.” The​ 1st Circuit Court also agreed, stating that​ schools can restrict student expression ‍if it could disrupt the learning environment.

“this case ‌isn’t about T-shirts. It’s about public ⁤school telling a middle-schooler ‍that​ he isn’t allowed to ​express a view that it differs from their own,” said David Cortman, an ⁤ADF attorney.

What’s next

With the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case, the existing legal‌ precedent allowing schools to regulate student speech‍ deemed disruptive or harmful remains in place. The issue of⁢ student free ​speech and school ‌policies‍ on LGBTQ+ issues will likely continue to be debated in lower courts⁤ and communities nationwide.