Supreme Court Declines to Review Free Speech Case of Middle Schooler Who Wore ‘Only Two Genders’ Shirt

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up the case of a Massachusetts student whose middle school barred him from wearing a shirt stating, “There are only two genders.”

The case was brought on behalf of student Liam Morrison through his father and stepmother, Christopher and Susan Morrison against Nichols Middle School. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the law firm representing Morrison, argued that the school violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in 2023 by sending him home for wearing the “only two genders” shirt, as well as forcing him to change his clothes after he wore a redacted version of the shirt with the word “censored” where “two” used to be. Morrison was in seventh grade at the time.

Conservative-leaning Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas writing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit “distorted this Court’s First Amendment case law in significant ways that warrant this Court’s review.” Both justices also assessed that the lower court flouted the “binding precedent” of Tinker, a 1969 case which held that public school officials may not restrict a student’s freedom of speech unless his behavior “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”

“So long as the First Circuit’s opinion is on the books, thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights. That alone is worth this Court’s attention,” Alito wrote in his dissent, which Thomas joined.

“The problem, however, runs deeper: as this case makes clear, some lower courts are confused on how to manage the tension between students’ rights and schools’ obligations,” he continued. “Our Nation’s students, teachers, and administrators deserve clarity on this critically important question. Because the Court has instead decided to let the confusion linger, I respectfully dissent.” 

The First Circuit sided with the school against Liam in June of 2024 — a school which notably pushes pro-LGBTQ+ instruction and celebrations, like “PRIDE Spirit Week,” onto middle school students.

“If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues,” Alito countered. “If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination.”

ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman said he is “disappointed the Supreme Court chose not to hear this critical free speech case.”

“As Justice Alito recognized: ‘The case presents an issue of great importance for our Nation’s youth.’ Students don’t lose their free speech rights the moment they walk into a school building. Schools can’t suppress students’ views they disagree with,” he said.

“Here, the school actively promotes its view about gender through posters and ‘Pride’ events, and it encourages students to wear clothing with messages on the same topic—so long as that clothing expresses the school’s preferred views on the subject,” he continued. “Our legal system is built on the truth that the government cannot silence any speaker just because it disapproves of what they say. Alliance Defending Freedom will continue to defend the rights of students to speak freely on important issues of the day without government censorship.”

The case is L.M. v. Middleborough, No. . 24-410 in the Supreme Court of the United States.