The nation’s highest court just delivered a crushing blow to a middle school student fighting for his First Amendment rights.
Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm bells over the implications of this latest decision.
And the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear this case involving a student’s “two genders” shirt sends a chilling message about expression in America’s schools.
Supreme Court declines to review Massachusetts student’s free speech case
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Liam Morrison, a Massachusetts middle school student who was sent home from school for wearing shirts stating “There are only two genders” and a similar message with the word “censored” covering part of the text.
The battle over a t-shirt slogan brought America’s cultural divide straight into a middle school hallway and sparked a firestorm that traveled all the way to Washington.
Back in 2023, young Morrison strolled into Nichols Middle School wearing his “There are only two genders” shirt. School brass wouldn’t have it. They told the kid his shirt was making classmates “feel unsafe” and gave him an ultimatum – change or go home. The seventh-grader stood his ground and got sent packing.
Christopher and Susan Morrison weren’t about to let their son’s rights get trampled. They lawyered up and sued, arguing schools can’t muzzle kids for stating biological facts. The parents insisted the Constitution protects Liam’s right to voice his beliefs, even unpopular ones.
But in June 2024, the First Circuit crushed their hopes. The judges backed the school, claiming Liam’s shirt crossed the line from opinion to something “demeaning” that targets transgender students. With Tuesday’s Supreme Court snub, that ruling sticks – a gut punch to the Morrison family and anyone worried about free speech in America’s schools.
Thomas and Alito break ranks
The high court’s cold shoulder to this case wasn’t unanimous.
Thomas and Alito fired off separate dissents, slamming their colleagues for ducking a chance to set the record straight on students’ First Amendment freedoms.
The split reveals a Court fractured over where to draw the line on speech that challenges progressive views in today’s classrooms.
This pattern keeps repeating: school officials label traditional viewpoints as “unsafe” or “harmful,” courts nod along, and conservative perspectives get shown the door. Meanwhile, the goal posts for what counts as “hurtful” speech keep moving further left.
Student insisted his message wasn’t targeting individuals
In a 2023 interview with Fox News Digital, Liam Morrison emphasized that his shirt wasn’t directed at specific individuals.
“I’m just voicing my opinion about a statement that I believe to be true,” Morrison said at the time. “And I feel like some people may think that I’m imposing hate speech, even though it’s not directed towards anyone.”
Morrison specifically noted that his message wasn’t intended to target anyone who is “lesbian or gay or transgender or anything like that,” but rather to express his personal belief about biological sex.
Morrison’s legal muscle came from two heavy hitters in religious liberty circles – the Alliance Defending Freedom and Massachusetts Family Institute. Both outfits have been in the trenches for years defending traditional values in courtrooms nationwide.
Double standards on display
Freedom of speech advocates are blasting the Court’s decision as giving school brass a blank check to play favorites with viewpoints.
“If your message leans right, you’re out of luck. But wave a rainbow flag or sport a ‘love is love’ t-shirt, and suddenly everyone’s fine with self-expression,” one frustrated parent told reporters after hearing the news.
The Morrison case exposes the tug-of-war happening in schoolhouses across America. Administrators caught between letting kids speak their minds and making sure nobody feels unwelcome are increasingly picking sides in the culture war – and traditional viewpoints aren’t winning.
With the Supreme Court declining to establish clearer guidelines, public schools nationwide will continue making their own determinations about which messages are permitted and which cross the line – leaving students with traditional views in potential limbo about their speech rights.
