A Massachusetts middle schooler’s fight to wear a T-shirt proclaiming “There are only two genders” won’t get its day in the Supreme Court, leaving a lower court’s ruling in place and a debate over student free speech unresolved.

The case, which pits a student’s right to express his views against a school’s effort to protect its learning environment, has stirred up questions about where the line is drawn in today’s classrooms. Here’s what happened, and what it means.

In March 2023, Liam Morrison, a 12-year-old seventh grader at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, wore a T-shirt to school that read, “There are only two genders.”

School officials told him to remove it, citing their dress code, which bans clothing that “state[s], impl[ies], or depict[s] hate speech or imagery that target[s] groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.”

Liam refused, and his father took him home. Weeks later, he wore the same shirt with “only two” covered by tape reading “censored,” but was again told to take it off.

Liam, through his father and stepmother, Christopher and Susan Morrison, sued the school, arguing it violated his First Amendment rights.

A federal district court and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the school, and on May 27, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Liam was clear about his intent. “I’m just voicing my opinion about a statement that I believe to be true,” he told Fox News Digital in 2023, stressing the shirt wasn’t aimed at anyone specific, like “lesbian or gay or transgender or anything like that.”

His lawyers, from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Massachusetts Family Institute, argued the school was censoring his viewpoint while allowing pro-transgender messages, like a student’s shirt reading “HE SHE THEY IT’S ALL OKAY.”

“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,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman.

The school, though, said the shirt could harm transgender and gender-nonconforming students, some of whom “had experienced serious mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation, related to their treatment by other students based on their gender identities,” according to their Supreme Court filing.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the school’s decision, said schools can restrict speech under the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines precedent if it “assertedly demeans characteristics of personal identity” and is “reasonably forecasted” to disrupt the learning environment.

Chief Justice David Barron wrote, “The question here is not whether the t-shirts should have been barred. The question is who should decide whether to bar them—educators or federal judges.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, wanting to take the case. Alito argued the appeals court gave “near-total deference” to the school, watering down Tinker’s standard, which requires evidence of “substantial disruption.”

“This case presents an issue of great importance for our Nation’s youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere,” he wrote, joined by Thomas.

Cortman echoed this, saying, “We’re 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.’

The ruling leaves the 1st Circuit’s decision as the final word, meaning Nichols Middle School was justified in banning Liam’s shirts. The case, L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, hasn’t settled the bigger question of how far schools can go in regulating student speech, especially on hot-button issues like gender identity. With no Supreme Court guidance, that debate’s bound to keep simmering.

Please leave your opinions / comments on these stories below, we appreciate your perspective!