A Massachusetts middle school, a seventh-grade student, and two Supreme Court justices are at the center of a fiery debate that’s stirring up parents and free speech advocates nationwide. Liam Morrison’s quiet protest at Nichols Middle School made national headlines, and now, after a pivotal Supreme Court decision, the controversy has only grown louder.

According to Breitbart, the Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to review Morrison’s case, upholding the school’s ban on his “There are only two genders” shirt. This decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that sided with the school and against Morrison’s free speech claims.

The legal battle began last year after Morrison was sent home for refusing to remove the shirt, which school officials claimed was disruptive. After he returned with a version featuring the word “censored” in place of “two,” he was again forced to change. The family, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, argued the school was discriminating against their viewpoint and violating Morrison’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Conservative justices sound alarm

Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented forcefully, warning that the First Circuit’s ruling undermines the free speech rights of students everywhere. Thomas, in particular, argued the lower court “distorted this Court’s First Amendment case law in significant ways that warrant this Court’s review.”

Alito’s dissent, joined by Thomas, directly criticized the majority’s refusal to take up the case. He argued the First Circuit ignored the Supreme Court’s own precedent from Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), which held student speech could only be restricted if it “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”

Alito wrote:

So long as the First Circuit’s opinion is on the books, thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights. That alone is worth this Court’s attention. The problem, however, runs deeper: as this case makes clear, some lower courts are confused on how to manage the tension between students’ rights and schools’ obligations. Our Nation’s students, teachers, and administrators deserve clarity on this critically important question. Because the Court has instead decided to let the confusion linger, I respectfully dissent.

School pushes LGBTQ+ agenda

Nichols Middle School has faced criticism from parents and conservative groups for its overt promotion of LGBTQ+ messaging and events. The school celebrates “PRIDE Spirit Week” and encourages students to wear clothing supporting LGBTQ+ causes, even as it banned Morrison’s shirt expressing a contrary viewpoint.

Supporters of Morrison argue that by allowing one side of a social issue and silencing the other, the school is engaging in clear viewpoint discrimination. They see the administration’s actions as a dangerous precedent for shutting down dissenting voices, especially on divisive cultural topics.

ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision, emphasizing that students’ free speech rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate. He noted that Nichols Middle School “actively promotes its view about gender through posters and ‘Pride’ events” while punishing students who wear clothing expressing different beliefs.

Critics defend school decision

Supporters of the school’s action insist that it was necessary to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for all students. They argue that the message on Morrison’s shirt could be viewed as targeting or marginalizing LGBTQ+ students, undermining the school’s efforts to foster acceptance and respect.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, ruling in June 2024 that the school had the authority to restrict Morrison’s shirt to prevent potential disruption and harm. The court cited the need to balance free speech with the rights and well-being of other students, especially those who might feel threatened or unwelcome.

Proponents of the ruling argue that schools have a responsibility to protect students from messages that could be interpreted as bigoted or exclusionary. They maintain that the First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate speech that undermines their educational mission or the dignity of vulnerable groups.

What happens for students now

The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene leaves the First Circuit’s ruling in place, effectively giving schools broad discretion to limit student speech on controversial issues. Liam Morrison’s case, which began as a personal stand for his beliefs, now serves as a national flashpoint in the debate over free speech and gender ideology in public schools.

The legal precedent set by the First Circuit will guide how similar cases are handled across the country, impacting thousands of students who might wish to express unpopular or dissenting viewpoints. Critics warn that this opens the door for schools to suppress speech they disagree with, while supporters insist it is necessary to maintain order and inclusivity.

As the dust settles, students, parents, and educators are left with few answers and more questions about where the line should be drawn between free expression and school authority. The fight over what students can say—and wear—in America’s classrooms is far from over.