The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a high-profile case involving a Massachusetts middle school student who was disciplined for wearing a shirt with a controversial message about gender.

According to Breitbart, the decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that sided with the school, sparking ongoing debates around student speech rights, school policy, and ideological expression in public education.

Liam Morrison, a seventh-grade student at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, was removed from class in 2023 for wearing a T-shirt that read, “There are only two genders.” Morrison had worn the shirt without incident in the morning but was later confronted by school staff and asked to remove it.

Family Lawsuit Claims Viewpoint Discrimination

After he declined to change the shirt, Morrison was sent home. He later wore a modified version bearing the word “censored” in place of “two” but was again required to change clothing. These incidents prompted Morrison’s father and stepmother, Christopher and Susan Morrison, to file a lawsuit against the school.

The case, formally titled L.M. v. Middleborough, No. 24-410, was supported by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization. The group argued that the school’s actions violated Morrison’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and amounted to viewpoint discrimination under the Constitution.

ADF cited the school’s promotion of pro-LGBTQ+ messages, including a “PRIDE Spirit Week,” as evidence of the administration endorsing one viewpoint while suppressing others. They claimed students were encouraged to wear clothing with supportive messages around gender identity, but dissenting perspectives like Morrison’s were not tolerated.

Lower Court Ruling Goes in School's Favor

In June 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in favor of Nichols Middle School. The court found that the school’s actions did not violate Morrison’s constitutional rights and that administrators had acted within appropriate bounds to maintain a supportive learning environment.

This ruling was contested by Morrison’s legal team, who then appealed to the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the justices declined to take up the case, effectively upholding the appeals court’s decision without elaboration.

The decision drew strong dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Both argued that the case raised fundamental questions about the nature of student speech and deserved a full hearing from the Court.

Dissenting Justices Warn of Legal Confusion

In his dissent, Justice Thomas said the First Circuit Court had misinterpreted existing First Amendment precedents. He suggested that the legal reasoning used by the lower court significantly diverged from established constitutional principles and warranted Supreme Court attention.

Justice Alito echoed the concern, writing that, “thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights” as long as the lower court’s decision remains. He argued that such limitations on student speech should not be allowed to stand unexamined at the national level.

Alito further pointed to the broader legal confusion among lower courts about how to balance student rights with school obligations. “Our Nation’s students, teachers, and administrators deserve clarity on this critically important question,” he wrote.

Legal Team Criticizes Missed Opportunity

David Cortman, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, expressed disappointment following the Supreme Court’s decision to pass on the case. He emphasized the importance of protecting student expression within educational settings.

“Students don’t lose their free speech rights the moment they walk into a school building,” Cortman said. He argued that in Morrison’s case, the school openly supported certain views while rejecting others, which he considered a clear instance of viewpoint discrimination.

Cortman also stated that the school was selectively promoting advocacy. “Schools can’t suppress students’ views they disagree with,” he said, adding that the ADF would continue litigating similar cases in pursuit of free speech protections for students nationwide.

Lingering Questions for Public Education Policy

The unresolved nature of the case leaves educators, parents, and legal experts facing ongoing uncertainty about how to interpret constitutional protections in school settings. Without Supreme Court guidance, lower courts may follow varying standards, generating inconsistent outcomes.

Justice Alito concluded that, especially when sensitive topics like gender identity are introduced in schools, dissenting voices should not be silenced. “If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues,” he wrote.

He warned that limiting such expression in schools could have more serious consequences for younger students, stating that impressionable children may be more vulnerable to one-sided indoctrination when alternative voices are excluded from the conversation.