The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a student’s appeal challenging his Massachusetts school district’s ban on wearing a T-shirt that reads, “There are only two genders.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would have reviewed the case, arguing that lower courts were misapplying the First Amendment. Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote that if schools teach about social issues such as LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, they must tolerate dissenting student speech.
Lower courts held that the school’s restriction did not violate the landmark 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, which held that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. The guardians of student L.M. sued the Middleborough, Massachusetts, district in 2023, citing Tinker after administrators barred shirts reading “There are only two genders” and “there are censored genders.”
The lawsuit argued the rulings give schools a “blank check” to suppress unpopular political or religious views, sanction censorship based on psychological discomfort, undermine the duty to teach tolerance, and weaken free-speech protections whenever schools deem speech demeaning to personal identity characteristics.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian conservative legal organization with a strong Supreme Court track record on gender and sexuality issues, represents the student. The school district, however, accused the group of rewriting facts and ignoring administrator testimony showing the shirts disrupted learning and affected vulnerable students’ ability to focus.
Administrators noted the young age of Nichols Middle School students and detailed the severe mental-health challenges faced by transgender and gender-nonconforming students, including suicidal ideation. They testified that some had previously been bullied or hospitalized due to self-harm or suicide attempts, providing the context for restricting the shirts.
Although the petition was denied, the Supreme Court will hear a major case this term on whether Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors constitutes sex discrimination—a ruling that could affect similar laws in about half of U.S. states. Separately, the Court also made headlines for temporarily shielding the Department of Government Efficiency from transparency orders related to an ongoing lawsuit, with Chief Justice John Roberts issuing an administrative stay without explanation, prompting criticism over delayed disclosure.
