A T-Shirt, Student Speech, and a Supreme Court Pass
A simple t-shirt has sparked a battle that reached the nation’s highest court—but the justices aren’t taking the bait. In Middleborough, Massachusetts, a student wanted to wear a shirt declaring “There are only two genders”,
but school officials said no. What seems like a minor wardrobe choice has turned into a high-stakes clash over free speech, student rights, and the limits of school authority—yet the U.S. Supreme Court quietly passed, leaving many wondering what comes next.
Supreme Court Declines Case
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in which a student challenged his school district’s ban on the shirt. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, both prominent conservatives, signaled they might have taken a closer look, arguing that lower courts are misinterpreting the First Amendment.
“If a school decides to teach students about topics like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, it must also allow dissenting student speech on those issues,” Alito wrote, joined by Thomas.
Lower courts, however, ruled that the school’s ban did not violate the landmark 1969 decision Tinker v. Des Moines, which protects student expression opposing the Vietnam War. Courts emphasized that while students retain constitutional rights, those rights are balanced against the school’s responsibility to prevent disruption and safeguard student well-being.
The Lawsuit
The student, referred to as L.M. because he is a minor, and his guardians filed the lawsuit in 2023 against Middleborough’s Nichols Middle School. They argued that banning shirts reading “There are only two genders” or “there are censored genders” infringed on his free speech rights.
“Schools are effectively given a blank check to suppress unpopular political or religious views. Censorship based on alleged psychological harm or ideological offense violates Tinker and undermines the First Amendment,” the lawsuit states.
Representing the student is Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian conservative legal organization often involved in cases concerning gender and s*xuality before SCOTUS.
The School’s Defense
School attorneys countered that the organization “misrepresents the facts,” citing the young age of students, serious mental health struggles among transgender and gender-nonconforming pupils, and prior instances of bullying that led to self-harm or hospitalization. They argued that the shirts could disrupt the learning environment.
Broader Legal Context
While the Supreme Court passed on this case, it will soon hear another high-profile issue: whether Tennessee’s restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors constitute unlawful s*x discrimination—a decision that could affect similar laws in roughly half the states, with a ruling expected by early summer.
Separately, SCOTUS recently made headlines by temporarily shielding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created under former President Trump’s Executive Order 14158, from transparency orders. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a stay without explanation, leaving critics questioning delays in government accountability.
Conclusion
The Middleborough case underscores the delicate balance between student free speech and the responsibility of schools to protect vulnerable students. By declining to intervene, the Supreme Court has left the debate unresolved. Communities across the nation continue to watch as courts navigate controversial speech, gender identity, and constitutional rights. The unanswered questions leave one thing clear: the limits of expression in schools are far from settled, and the conversation is just beginning.