In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a Massachusetts middle school student, Liam Morrison, who challenged his school district’s decision to ban him from wearing a T-shirt stating “There are only two genders.” By refusing review, the Court allowed a lower court ruling to stand — namely, the decision of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had upheld the school’s dress-code restriction. Importantly, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the Court’s decision not to take the case, signaling that they believed the issue raised important First Amendment questions.

The case began in 2023 when Liam, then a seventh-grader at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, wore the shirt to school.  School administrators told him to remove it, citing complaints from other students. He refused and left for the day. Later, he wore a modified version of the shirt, covering the phrase “only two” with tape labeled “CENSORED,” but was again asked to change.

Liam’s legal team, led by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), argued that the shirt expressed his sincerely held belief equating gender with biological sex.  They contended that the school was engaging in viewpoint discrimination by allowing pro-gender-diversity messages (for instance, Pride Month displays) but suppressing his opposing viewpoint.  According to his attorneys, this was not a personal attack, but a political or philosophical statement deserving protection under the First Amendment.

On the other side, the school district defended its decision by citing student well-being. In court, officials described serious mental-health challenges among transgender and gender-nonconforming students, including histories of suicidal ideation. According to the appeals court’s ruling, administrators reasonably “forecast” that the message on Liam’s shirt could negatively affect these students’ ability to focus and participate in class.

In its ruling, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school’s actions, citing the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines standard that schools can restrict student speech that may substantially disrupt the educational environment. Chief Judge David J. Barron, writing for the panel, emphasized that the school’s concern was not abstract — administrators knew of the serious emotional distress among some students and judged that the shirt could exacerbate that harm.

When the Supreme Court declined to take the case, Alito, joined by Thomas, issued a dissent warning that the decision sends a dangerous message: schools might suppress viewpoints they disfavor under the guise of protecting student sensitivities. Alito argued that if schools teach about gender identity and LGBTQ+ issues, they should also tolerate dissenting opinions, even those some find offensive. Their dissent raises broader questions about the boundaries of student free speech in an era where gender-identity issues are deeply contentious and politically fraught.