Student asks Supreme Court to say he can wear T-shirt saying 'There are only two genders'
In past decisions, the Supreme Court has allowed students to wear arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War but not to hold up a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
WASHINGTON − As the United States waged war in Vietnam in the 1960s, the Supreme Court said a Des Moines high school could not prevent students from wearing black armbands in support of a truce.
But as schools fought decades later to discourage the use of illegal drugs in the 21st century, the high court said a student did not have a First Amendment right to hold up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
Now, as the debate over transgender rights has come to the forefront in the culture wars, a Massachusetts teenager wants the Supreme Court to say his middle school was wrong to prevent him from wearing a T-shirt stating, in all caps, “THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS.”
The court could decide later this month whether it will hear the appeal. The decision will come as the Trump administration has taken a raft of actions targeting transgender soldiers, athletes and minors as he aims to fulfill his campaign promise of ending "transgender insanity."
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order declaring that only two sexes, male and female, are recognized by the federal government.
“These sexes are not changeable,” the order states.
David Cortman, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization representing the student, said the case isn’t about T-shirts.
“It’s about a public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn’t allowed to express a view that differs from their own,” he said in a statement.
The school “can flood its halls” with rainbow flags and signs declaring it is a “Proud friend/ally of LGBTQ+,” lawyers for the student told the court. But the student, Liam Morrison, had to change his T-shirt if he wanted to remain at school.
School officials said they were acting out of concern for gender-nonconforming students, some of whom had previously experienced serious mental health struggles − including thoughts of suicide − because of how they were treated by other students.
Attorneys for the school said that action was consistent with previous Supreme Court decisions that a student’s First Amendment rights must be applied “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.”
In this case, the appeals court said it was reasonable for officials to conclude that “a message displayed throughout the school day denying the existence of the gender identities of transgender and gender nonconforming students would have a serious negative impact on those students’ ability to concentrate on their classroom work.”
Student sent home after refusing to change shirt
The dispute, which drew national attention, started in 2023 when Liam – then a seventh-grader − arrived at school in a black T-shirt that stated, “THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS.”
The student said he wanted to express his view to counter one promoted by school officials, popular culture and other students that he believes is “ultimately false and harmful,” according to his attorneys.
Liam "sought to participate in his school’s marketplace of ideas and address sociopolitical matters in a passive, silent, and untargeted way,” they wrote in a filing.
A teacher told the principal the shirt could potentially disrupt classes and could affect LGBTQ+ students.
Under the school’s dress code, clothing “must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target[s] groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.”
The code also bans “any other apparel that the administration determines to be unacceptable to our community standards.”
When the principal said the student couldn’t return to class unless he changed shirts, Liam opted to go home.
Shirt claiming 'censorship' also banned
Protests and counterprotests outside the school followed as the controversy grew.
When school administrators received threatening messages, the police department assigned a police detail there for several days.
Liam appeared before school officials to make his case. The parent of a transgender student told school officials she feared for her child’s safety.
Two more students wore “THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS” shirts on campus and were asked to change.
And Liam wore a version of the shirt with the word “censored” taped over “two genders.”
After being sent to the principal’s office, Liam took off that shirt. And then he and his parents sued.
Appeals court sides with school
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the school, finding it was reasonable to conclude the messaging could be harmful.
Judge David Barron wrote for a three-judge panel that Liam's shirt was different from the armbands that the Supreme Court allowed during the Vietnam War in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District because the black bands did not refer to anyone's personal characteristics.
“Tinker does not require a school to tolerate t-shirts that denigrate a race or ethnicity, for instance, just because the school celebrates Black History Month, Asian and Pacific American Heritage Month, and Hispanic Heritage Month,” Barron wrote.
The judge said that, in applying that 1969 decision, federal courts have ruled schools can restrict messages that can be reasonably interpreted to demean a person’s identity and are reasonably expected to be disruptive.
And school officials, Barron wrote, must have “some margin to make high-stakes assessments in conditions of inevitable uncertainty.”
“The question here is not whether the t-shirts should have been barred,” Barron wrote. “The question is who should decide whether to bar them – educators or federal judges.”
But the student’s attorneys said that the decision eviscerates the Supreme Court’s “demanding evidentiary standard” set by the 1969 case and gives “extreme deference” to school officials.
“That means students like (Liam) may not disagree – even silently and passively – with government officials on hot-button topics,” they wrote, urging the court to take their appeal.