The Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Liam Morrison, a Massachusetts student who was punished by a middle school for wearing t-shirts that read “There are only two genders” and “There are censored genders.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented the decision to decline.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) first filed suit on behalf of Morrison in May 2023 after Morrison—a seventh grader at the time—was sent home from Nichols Middle School for wearing his “There are only two genders” shirt. The principal and a school counselor removed Morrison from class and ordered him to take off the shirt. They asserted that the shirt made people feel “unsafe.” Declining, Morrison returned home and forfeited class. In May, Morrison was sent to the principal again after he wore the “There are censored genders” shirt.

A district court ruled against Morrison, stating that the shirt qualified as an “invasion of the rights of others”—a statement used under the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Court ruled in that case that school officials could not prohibit public school students from wearing black armbands that protested against the Vietnam War.

Morrison’s case went to the U.S. Court of Appeals but lost. Hence, ADF petitioned the case to the Supreme Court for a review. Eighteen states, as well as multiple legal organizations and free speech advocates, filed amicus briefs in support of Morrison.

Multiple briefs argued that the ruling misapplied Tinker and that that ruling actually supports Morrison’s case.

The Tinker ruling states that “to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [school officials] must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

Quoting the ruling in its brief, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression argued that Tinker was “fashioned to address cases of extreme, targeted conduct, such as direct physical interference with another student’s person, and not—as here—speech that provokes disagreement or personal discomfort.”

Independent Women’s Law Center argued Tinker advocates for Morrison’s freedom of speech.

“But the standard for regulation of student speech under Tinker has never been that the school district can regulate student speech just because it implies that students with different beliefs are wrong,” the brief stated. “Indeed, Tinker states the exact opposite, repeatedly emphasizing that schools cannot regulate speech just because it conveys an ‘unpopular viewpoint’ that may cause ‘discomfort and unpleasantness’ to others.”

The Institute for Faith and Family also argued that the school’s dress code policy threatens to infringe on freedom of religion and conscience as “Convictions about sexuality are inextricably intertwined with religion and conscience, as many faith traditions have strong teachings about sexual morality, marriage, and the distinction between male and female.”

Regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to decline, Justice Alito in his dissent stated that “Students do not relinquish their First Amendment rights at school, … and by extension, a school cannot censor a student’s speech merely because it is controversial.”

David Cortman, ADF senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation, reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision.

“As Justice Alito recognized: ‘The case presents an issue of great importance for our Nation’s youth,’” Cortman said in a press release. “Students don’t lose their free speech rights the moment they walk into a school building. Schools can’t suppress students’ views they disagree with. … Our legal system is built on the truth that the government cannot silence any speaker just because it disapproves of what they say.”

Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom