Supreme Court Lets Punishment Stand After Student Wears ‘Only Two Genders’ Shirt
The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a middle school student who was punished for wearing a shirt bearing the message “There are only two genders,” effectively allowing the disciplinary action to stand and raising serious concerns about the state of free speech in America’s public schools.
The decision came without comment, as the Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving intact a lower court ruling that sided with the school district in Massachusetts. The student, Liam Morrison, a seventh-grader at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, had worn the shirt as a statement aligned with his Christian and biological beliefs about gender. Administrators removed him from class and later disciplined him, claiming the shirt violated the school’s dress code.
Our Memorial Day Sale is STILL ON! Get 25% Off Sitewide with Discount Code: MEMORIAL25.
Includes FREE Shipping in the USA. https://GetZStack.Com
The family, with backing from the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), sued the school for violating Morrison’s First Amendment rights. However, both the district court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claim, concluding that the school’s interest in maintaining a so-called “safe learning environment” overrode the student’s constitutional right to free expression.
Despite the clear ideological underpinnings of the case, the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene marks a chilling precedent. Critics argue it sends a message that speech challenging progressive orthodoxy can be silenced under the guise of preserving “inclusivity” or “psychological safety”—even when it reflects a viewpoint grounded in science, tradition, and religious conviction.
“This isn’t about hate or bullying—it’s about stating a biological fact,” Morrison’s father said during a press conference following the Supreme Court’s decision. “My son was punished for speaking the truth. What kind of country are we becoming where facts are considered offensive?”
Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Logan Spena echoed this concern. “Public school officials can’t censor students simply because they express views the officials disagree with,” he said in a statement. “This case was an opportunity for the Court to reaffirm that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”
But that opportunity is now lost, and conservative legal scholars are alarmed. By allowing the lower court’s decision to stand, the Supreme Court may have emboldened public schools to stifle viewpoints that don’t align with leftist ideology. Many fear that traditional and religious voices will increasingly be targeted in America’s public education system.
The school’s defense hinged on the argument that Morrison’s shirt created a “hostile environment” for transgender and nonbinary students, though no credible evidence of disruption was ever presented in court. Critics argue that this rationale reflects an ongoing trend in public education—where discomfort, not actual harm, is now considered justification for censorship, particularly when conservative viewpoints are at stake.
At the heart of this controversy is the question of whether students retain their First Amendment rights in schools. The 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines ruling famously held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Yet recent decisions suggest that Tinker’s protections are eroding under the weight of cultural and ideological pressure.
The implications reach far beyond one boy and one shirt. Across the country, students with biblical or biologically-based views on gender are increasingly being told their perspectives are not welcome in public discourse—at least not in the public school classroom. This ruling confirms what many conservatives have feared: the left is not merely promoting inclusivity but enforcing conformity.
From a Christian worldview, the notion that there are only two genders—male and female—is not just a belief but a truth rooted in Scripture and creation. To punish a student for affirming this reflects an aggressive secularism that undermines both religious liberty and freedom of thought.
The ruling also reveals an educational system increasingly driven by ideological agendas. While students are encouraged to explore their gender identities and express them freely, those who affirm traditional or scientific views on gender are punished and silenced. This double standard undermines the credibility of the schools and damages public trust.
It’s worth noting that the shirt worn by Morrison was neither vulgar nor inflammatory. It expressed a viewpoint—one shared by millions of Americans, including many parents, clergy, and educators. That such a mild statement could result in punishment—and that the highest court in the land would refuse to hear the case—is an unsettling sign of where the nation is heading.
Liam Morrison’s case may be closed, but the battle for viewpoint diversity in schools is far from over. Conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists are being put on notice: expressing traditional values, even calmly and factually, may now carry disciplinary consequences in America’s classrooms.
This ruling raises a stark question for all Americans: if a child can’t speak biological truth in school, where can free speech survive?