The Supreme Court allowed a federal ruling to stand that found that a Massachusetts public school was justified in banning a student who wore shirts criticizing the transgender movement. The decision comes nearly a year after the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Liam Morrison and his parents in June 2024, finding that the school was justified in asking him to remove the shirt and sending him home when he refused.
Following the initial ruling, the Morrison family, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Massachusetts Family Institute, sought to have the Supreme Court review the case. However, the Court declined to hear the case, allowing the lower court’s decision to remain in effect. The school cited concerns that the shirts could make transgender students feel unsafe, a justification upheld by the federal court.
Liam Morrison, who was in seventh grade at the time, was sent home with his father in May 2023 after refusing to take off the shirt. The school later also told him to remove a shirt with the same message but with the word ‘censored’ written over ‘only two.’ In a 2023 interview, Liam emphasized that his T-shirt was not directed at anyone, particularly individuals who are ‘lesbian, gay, or transgender.’ He described the shirt as an expression of his belief in the ‘only two genders’ statement.
The dissenting opinions from Justices Thomas and Alito highlighted their belief that the Court should have taken up the case, indicating a potential split in the justices’ views on the issue. Despite their disagreement, the Supreme Court’s decision to let the lower court’s ruling stand underscores the ongoing tensions around free speech and the rights of transgender students in public schools.
The ruling has sparked debates about the balance between free expression and the protection of vulnerable groups. Advocacy groups and educators continue to discuss the implications of the decision, particularly in light of recent cases involving similar issues. As the courts navigate these complex questions, the legal landscape surrounding student speech and campus policies remains a focal point of public discourse.