logo
Long-Running Legal Battle Over Free Speech in Schools May Be Settled by Supreme Court

Long-Running Legal Battle Over Free Speech in Schools May Be Settled by Supreme Court

Epoch Times10-05-2025

The United States Supreme Court is deciding whether to take up the widely reported free expression case of middle schooler Liam Morrison of Massachusetts.
The high court was
As of publication time, the Supreme Court has not said whether it intends to consider Morrison's appeal.
The case arose in March 2023 when Morrison, then a 7th-grader at John T. Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, came to a first-period gym class in a T-shirt with the words 'There Are Only Two Genders' printed on the front.
According to his original
The issue was that a teacher and school administrators determined that the wording on Morrison's T-shirt violated the school dress code by targeting a protected class—LGBT students—in the area of gender identity.
Related Stories
5/7/2025
5/1/2025
His father, Christopher Morrison, sided with his son's contention that it was his right to wear the shirt. The elder Morrison came to school and took Liam home.
Liam Morrison returned to school the next day wearing a different shirt without punishment.
According to his
'He [Morrison] wore the shirt to school to peacefully share his belief, informed by his scientific understanding of biology, that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that a person's gender—their status as a boy or girl, woman or man—is inextricably tied to sex,' according to a
Alliance attorneys and lawyers from the Massachusetts Family Institute are representing Liam Morrison, a minor, and his parents.
Middleborough Superintendent of Schools Carolyn Lyons did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.
Explanation and Resolution Sought
Shortly after the incident, Christopher Morrison contacted school officials seeking a further explanation.
He was reminded that he and his wife had signed a copy of the dress code, which states in part: 'Clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification,' according to the petition.
The Morrisons denied the message on Liam's shirt is 'hate speech,' saying in the petition it is a general statement not directed at any individual or group.
According to the petition, a few weeks later, school administrators received a lengthy
An Alternate View
Liam and his parents knew that his opinion ran contrary to the school's official orthodoxy on gender, a dogma Liam said that 'in good conscience' he could not accept.
His attorneys asked school officials to respect his view and allow him to continue to express his beliefs through what they described as a passive, non-threatening message on his T-shirt.
Liam Morrison.
Courtesy of the Alliance Defending Freedom
The demand letter stated that Liam Morrison intended to wear his T-shirt again, and it put the school on notice that hindering him from wearing it was a violation of his constitutional rights.
If Liam's right to free expression was not respected, 'it may be necessary to take legal action against the school district,' the letter said.
Attorney for the school district, Kay Hodge,
A day later, Liam Morrison wore the T-shirt to school, but this time the words 'Only Two' were taped over and replaced with the word 'Censored.'
The T-shirt read, 'There Are CENSORED Genders.'
Liam Morrison's second gesture of protest was stopped by the administration, and this time, the honor student chose to change shirts so he could remain in class.
Alleged Viewpoint Discrimination
On May 19, 2023, the Morrisons filed a verified
The complaint stated that the United States Constitution protects Morrison's free expression 'by prohibiting the government from adopting and enforcing a set of approved views on these matters in America's public schools.'
Morrison alleges that John T. Nichols Middle School has done just that in dealing with the topic of gender.
He contends the school's demonstrated approved view is that a person's subjective identity determines whether a person is male or female, not a person's sex.
According to Morrison, any deviation from this official orthodoxy is prohibited in school, while affirming speech on the topic is celebrated.
Morrison's complaint argued that his shirt caused no disruptions.
The complaint asked the court for preliminary injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order so that Morrison could continue wearing his T-shirt.
A Clash of Rights
The school replied that it had received complaints from staff and students about the message on Morrison's shirt, contending that it infringed on the rights of trans and gender non-conforming students, who are a protected class under Massachusetts law.
The federal district court found in favor of the school, and Morrison appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
During the appeal, the school acknowledged that there were no disputes of fact in the case.
Attorneys for the school presented evidence that 20 students said in a survey that they had concerns about the school environment for LGBT students, and that 10 to 20 students participated in the Gay Straight Alliance Club at Nichols Middle School.
The appeals court
The administrators contended that school was a unique environment composed of 'an immature and captive audience,' in which violations of the 'right to be left alone' interfere with their 'right to learn.'
They argued that the demeaning of personal characteristics crushes a child's sense of self-worth and impedes the ability to learn.
The concern of school officials over the suicide rate and the rise in suicidal ideation among transgender and gender-nonconforming students weighed heavily upon the court's decision.
In its 70-page ruling dated June 9, 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the district court denying the right of Morrison to wear his T-shirt in school.
The decision noted that the latitude of freedom of speech is not as broad in the school environment as it is out in the community at large, and affirmed that school officials should determine the appropriateness of speech in their unique settings and circumstances free from judicial interference.
The battle lines are now drawn for a fight in the U.S. Supreme Court, if the high court decides to take up the case.
An amicus brief opposing Morrison's position has been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Attorneys general from 18 states, along with numerous conservative organizations, such as the Pacific Justice Institute, Parents Defending Education, and the Religious Broadcasters Association, have filed an amicus brief supporting Morrison's right to free expression.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Broward judge denies violating judicial conduct code over deepfake AI call
Broward judge denies violating judicial conduct code over deepfake AI call

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Broward judge denies violating judicial conduct code over deepfake AI call

Broward County Judge Lauren Peffer in a new court filing Friday formally denied the ethics charges filed against her, stemming from her promotion of a scandalous book and a deepfake AI recording during her campaign last year. In the routine filing with Florida's Supreme Court, Peffer denied the Judicial Qualifications Commission's charges filed last month that she violated judicial ethics rules that govern 'inappropriate political activity.' Peffer, a first-time judicial candidate, won her seat in August and began her term in January. During her campaign, which centered on trustworthiness and ethics in the judiciary, Peffer referenced in an endorsement interview with the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board a book written and published by a former courthouse employee in the Orlando area called, 'The Ninth Circus Court of Florida, My 30-Year Job from Hell!' The book, written by someone who had been terminated, 'portrays the judiciary in the Ninth Judicial Circuit as corrupt and incompetent and attacks the character' of numerous judges, including current Chief Judge Lisa Munyon, according to the JQC's charging document. Peffer wrote in response to a Sun Sentinel editorial board questionnaire that the book's 'recent revelations' had 'highlighted an image crisis within Florida's judiciary,' according to the JQC's notice of formal charges. At the time Peffer cited the book in the Sun Sentinel interview, it lacked any published reviews and appeared to have generated no public discourse or impact, the Sun Sentinel previously reported. Asked by the Sun Sentinel about evidence of the book creating public mistrust, Peffer sent the newspaper a link to an 18-minute recording of what purported to be a phone call about the book between Munyon, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz and Justice Renatha Francis, according to the notice of charges. But the recording was fake, likely made with generative AI, and could be deemed so by 'any reasonable person,' the JQC said in its notice of charges. Broward judicial candidate drops Orlando author's self-published tell-all from her campaign stump speech Peffer was forwarded the link to the recording 'by another lawyer,' her response filed Friday said. Peffer in her response to the charges on Friday acknowledged that she had not 'carefully listened to the call but had a recollection that the judiciary was being criticized in the recording' and did not try to determine its veracity before providing it to the newspaper. 'Judge Peffer acknowledges that she should have more carefully listened to the recording before referencing it in her answers to the editorial board. In responding to these proceedings, Judge Peffer listened to the recordings without distraction, and it was immediately apparent that the purported phone call was a 'deep fake,'' her response said. However, she denied that she shared the recording 'despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity,' as the JQC alleged in its charges. In her response, Peffer also admitted that she never read the disgruntled employee's book before referencing it to the Sun Sentinel and did not research the claims the employee made. 'Judge Peffer did not intend to promote the validity of the book but instead, she intended to point to the book as an example of criticism of the judiciary,' her response said. She previously acknowledged issues with the book in a July interview with the Sun Sentinel and said she would stop citing it. Peffer denied that she 'ignored' the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's training on campaign ethics as the notice of charges alleged and denied that she 'helped facilitate the former employee's farce,' according to her response.

NY appeals court rejects bid to overturn Trump's convictions in E. Jean Carroll case
NY appeals court rejects bid to overturn Trump's convictions in E. Jean Carroll case

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

NY appeals court rejects bid to overturn Trump's convictions in E. Jean Carroll case

President Donald Trump has lost his latest bid to challenge a civil jury verdict holding him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in the 90s and then defaming her decades later when she went public with the allegations. On Friday the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York declined Trump's request for a court's full bench to rehear his case. The decision leaves in place a December 2024 ruling by a three-judge panel upholding the 2023 jury verdict, which ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million in damages. Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, welcomed the decision. 'E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today's ruling,' she said. 'Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed. He remains liable for sexual assault and defamation.' The case is one of two civil suits Carroll, now 81, has filed against Trump, both stemming from his public denials of her 2019 accusation that he sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in 1996. In October 2022, Trump defamed Carroll on Truth Social by denying her claim as a hoax. Carroll's first lawsuit, related to Trump's 2019 statements, ended in January 2024 with an $83.3 million defamation verdict in her favor. Trump is also appealing that outcome. Oral arguments in that appeal are scheduled for June 24. The lawsuit at the center of Friday's ruling was filed in 2022 after New York temporarily lifted its statute of limitations for certain sexual assault claims. It included both defamation and battery claims related to Carroll's original allegations and Trump's more recent comments. Two judges—Steven Menashi and Michael Park, both appointed by Trump—dissented from Friday's decision, arguing the court should have reconsidered the case. Menashi accused the panel of deviating from precedent and criticized the trial judge for excluding key evidence and admitting 'stale witness testimony' from another woman who accused Trump of assault during an unrelated encounter. The majority of the appellate court rejected that view. Four judges countered the dissent, writing that the appeal did not meet the high bar required for review, which is typically reserved for cases involving significant legal questions or conflicts in appellate precedent. Judges Denny Chin and Susan Carney, who previously ruled against Trump in the December decision, issued a statement supporting the majority and directly refuting Menashi's arguments. 'Even on his own terms, our dissenting colleague fails to explain why any purported error warrants a retrial or full court review,' they wrote. Trump's final chance to overturn the verdict lies with the Supreme Court. His team has indicated that he will ask the highest court to hear his appeal, but the court is not obligated to do so. According to NBC News, in a statement Friday, a spokesperson for Trump described the lawsuit as a 'Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax' and said the former president 'will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he is focusing on his mission to Make America Great Again.'

Former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil denied release by judge
Former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil denied release by judge

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil denied release by judge

Mahmoud Khalil was denied release on Friday by a judge who, earlier in the week, had rejected the Trump administration's main legal basis for seeking to deport and detain the pro-Palestinian activist. When he issued a preliminary injunction in Khalil's favor Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said the government can't deport him under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that the former Columbia University student's presence and activities put U.S. interests at risk. The New Jersey judge added that, since Khalil can't be deported on that basis, he can't be detained on that basis, either. But the Biden appointee said in a new order against Khalil on Friday that the Trump administration now says it's holding him on a separate basis, not the one Farbiarz preliminarily enjoined earlier in the week. The judge noted that he had previously said Khalil failed to successfully challenge that secondary basis and had never appealed that ruling. The judge noted in his order that Khalil still has 'a number of avenues' available to him, such as asking an immigration judge for bail. Khalil's case gained national attention in the administration's immigration and deportation crackdown, which has featured arrests followed by court-ordered releases upholding free speech rights. The lawful U.S. resident has argued that his March arrest at student housing in New York City was 'retaliation against his protected speech.' He said he's not a flight risk or danger to the community, and he cited family hardship during his detention in Louisiana; his wife gave birth in April. He was born in Syria and is a citizen of Algeria. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store