Supreme Court Declines to Hear ‘There Are Only Two Genders’ T-Shirt Case

by Zachary Mettler | May 28, 2025 | Free Speech Government Updates

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up the case of a student banned from wearing a t-shirt to school with the words, “There are only two genders.”

When Liam Morrison was a 7th grade student at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, he decided to wear a t-shirt to school to support the biological fact that there are only two sexes – male and female.

The school speaks a lot about “gender identity,” including by “promoting the view that gender is a fluid construct” both “inside and outside the classroom,” and by hosting a “PRIDE Spirit Week.”

Liam, understandably, thought he would be free to speak on the topic – sharing his belief that there are only two sexes, male and female, and a person’s gender is inextricably tied to sex. But he was wrong.

When he wore his t-shirt, the principal of the school and a school counselor immediately pulled Liam out of class and ordered him to remove the shirt. When Liam declined, the principal told him he would not be allowed to return to class until he did so.

Liam again declined, and decided to leave school early that day, missing the rest of his classes.

School administrators then informed Liam’s father that they would continue to censor anyone who disagreed with the school’s position on “gender identity.” So, Liam wore a t-shirt to school with the phrase, “There are CENSORED genders.”

Again, school officials demanded Liam remove the shirt to be able to go to class.

Liam, with the help of lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), subsequently filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 19, 2023 to vindicate his constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech. But the court ruled against him two months later.

He appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit – one of the most liberal federal appellate courts in the nation. All five of the court’s sitting judges were appointed by Democrat presidents. One seat on the court is vacant.

The 1st Circuit ruled against Liam on June 9, 2024.

Liam’s attorneys then filed a petition for writ of certiorari (request to hear the case) with the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can watch a brief video of Liam explaining more about his case below:

On Tuesday, May 27, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up Liam’s case, leaving in place the 1st Circuit’s ruling against him.

Justices Alito and Thomas both dissented from the Court’s decision. Each penned a separate opinion, with Justice Thomas joining Justice Alito’s dissent.

“This case presents an issue of great importance to our Nation’s youth,” Justice Alito wrote. “The First Circuit’s decision [against Liam] calls out for our review.”

The justice pointed out that the 1st Circuit mistakenly applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District to Liam’s case.

Under Tinker, the Constitution allows schools to restrict student expression that:

  1. “Materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder;” or
  2. “Inva[des] … the rights of others.”

The district court concluded Liam’s shirts violated Tinker’s “rights of others” limitation. On appeal, the 1st Circuit ruled against Liam on Tinker’s first provision, finding his shirts constituted speech that “materially disrupt[ed] classwork or involve[ed] substantial disorder.”

But, Justice Alito explained, the First Circuit ignored the “bedrock principle that a school may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it regulates student speech. Tinker itself made that clear.”

The school clearly violated this principle by promoting speech supporting the schools’ view on radical gender ideology, but censoring speech disagreeing with it.

Additionally, the justice said the Court should have granted review “to determine whether the First Circuit properly understood the rule adopted in Tinker regarding the suppression of student speech on the ground that it presents a risk of material disruption.”

He concluded,

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. 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.
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.

“We’re disappointed the Supreme Court chose not to hear this critical free speech case,” said ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman in a statement after the court’s decision, adding,

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.
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.
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,” Cortman concluded.

It’s unfortunate the Supreme Court decided not to hear Liam’s case. But we’re thankful for Liam’s clear witness and courageous stand for the biological reality of sex. Let’s hope more students – and adults, for that matter – will continue to stand up for their constitutional rights.

The case is L.M. v. Town of Middleborough.

Related articles and resources:

Student Asks Court to Uphold Right to Wear ‘There are Only Two Genders’ Shirt

Photo from Alliance Defending Freedom.