Supreme Court rejects student's challenge to 'two genders' T-shirt ban
The case arose from student Liam Morrison's dispute with Nichols Middle School in Middleborough.
Lawyers for Morrison at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, say students were 'bombarded' with messages promoting the view 'that sex and gender are self-defined, limitless, and unmoored from biology.'
Morrison believes that view is 'false and harmful' and responded in March 2023 when he was in seventh grade by wearing the T-shirt. After he was told to remove it, he later wore another shirt that said 'There are [censored] genders.'
Morrison was not punished for wearing the shirts, although he was told he could not wear them in class and was sent home when he refused to remove the first one.
Two conservative members of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, dissented from the decision not to hear the case.
"This case presents an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive," Alito wrote.
The case raised questions about the extent of free speech rights for public school students under the Constitution's First Amendment, which was recognized in a landmark 1969 ruling that found students had the right to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War.
School administrators point to the student dress code, which bars any 'hate speech or imagery,' saying they were merely enforcing those requirements in order to avoid disruption in school.
Morrison's lawyers say the dress code's restrictions on speech are unconstitutional.
Both a federal district court judge and the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school.
The appeals court concluded that based on the 1969 ruling, school officials can bar 'passive and silently expressed messages' that demean other people even if the expression at issue does not target a specific student.
The Supreme Court is currently weighing a case from Maryland over an attempt by parents to ensure elementary school children can opt out of LGBT-focused books that might be read in class.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
Connections hints, clues and answers on Sunday, August 17 2025
WARNING: THERE ARE CONNECTIONS SPOILERS AHEAD! DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT THE AUGUST 17, 2025 NYT CONNECTIONS ANSWER SPOILED FOR YOU. Ready? OK! Have you been playing Connections, the super fun word game from the New York Times that has people sharing those multi-colored squares on social media like they did with Wordle? It's pretty fun and sometimes very challenging, so we're here to help you out with some clues and the answer for the four categories that you need to know: 1. In your neighborhood, say. 2. Think sign at a shop. 3. Mail. 4. Constitution. The answers are below this photo: 1. Conveniently located 2. Words on a door 3. Needs for sending a letter 4. First Amendment freedoms Play more word games Looking for more word games?
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Trump killed affirmative action. His base might not like what comes next.
Proponents for affirmative action in higher education rally in front of the US Supreme Court on October 31, 2022, in Washington, Donald Trump's administration is scrutinizing higher education. Last week, the White House issued a memorandum requiring all universities receiving federal funds to submit admissions data on all applicants to the Department of Education. The goal is to enforce the 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-based affirmative action. Days before the memo was released, Columbia and Brown agreed to share their admissions data with the administration, broken down by race, grade point average, and standardized test scores. The administration suspects that universities are using 'racial proxies' to get around the ban on race-based admissions. The Department of Education is expected to build a database of the admissions data and make it available to parents and students. Amid this increased federal scrutiny, an alternative idea from Richard Kahlenberg, director of the American Identity Project for the Progressive Policy Institute, is gaining attention. Kahlenberg, who testified in the Supreme Court cases against Harvard and UNC, advocates for class-based affirmative action instead of race-based admissions. He argues that this approach will yield more economically and racially equitable results. Today, Explained co-host Noel King spoke with Kahlenberg about how he contends with the consequences of helping gut race-based affirmative action, why he believes class-based affirmative action is the path forward, and if his own argument may come in the crosshairs of a Trump administration eager to stamp out all forms of affirmative action. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. You're the director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute. I would take it to mean that you are a progressive. It's complicated these days. I'm left of center. I think of myself more as liberal than progressive. I ask because you testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. This is the case that essentially gutted race-based affirmative action. It doesn't sound like a progressive, or even a left-of-center, position. What was going on? Explain what you were thinking. I've long been a supporter of racial diversity in colleges. I think that's enormously important, but I've been troubled that elite colleges were racially integrated, but economically segregated. I think there's a better way of creating racial diversity — a more liberal way, if you will — which is to give low-income and economically disadvantaged students of all races a leg up in the admissions process in order to create both racial and economic diversity. What was the data that you looked at that led you to believe that? Were primarily wealthy Black and Hispanic students benefiting from affirmative action? There'd been a number of studies over the years that had come to that conclusion, including from supporters of race-based affirmative action. Then, in the litigation, further evidence came out. At Harvard, 71 percent of the Black and Hispanic students came from the most socioeconomically privileged 20 percent of the Black and Hispanic population nationally. Now, to be clear, the white and Asian students were even richer. But for the most part, this was not a program that was benefiting working-class and low-income students. Alright, so the Supreme Court in 2023 hands down this decision that says, essentially, we're done with race-based affirmative action. Was there a difference in how progressives and conservatives interpreted the Supreme Court ruling? Most mainstream conservatives have always said they were opposed to racial preferences, but of course, they were for economic affirmative action. But now we have some on the extreme, including the Trump administration, saying that economic affirmative action is also illegal if part of the rationale for the policy is seeking to increase racial diversity. What do you make of that? That was your team once upon a time, right? Well, I think it's troubling when people shift the goalposts. In a number of the Supreme Court concurring opinions in the case, conservatives said that economic affirmative action made a lot of sense. Justice [Neil] Gorsuch, for example, said if Harvard got rid of legacy preferences and instead gave economic affirmative action, that would be perfectly legal. And now some extremists are shifting their position and saying they're opposed to any kind of affirmative action. Are you surprised by that shift? I'm not surprised. I'm confident, however, that a majority of the US Supreme Court won't go that far. The Supreme Court, to some degree, looks to public opinion. Racial preferences were always unpopular. But economic affirmative action is broadly supported by the public. The Supreme Court has had two cases come before it, subsequent to the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision. One involved a challenge to class-based affirmative action at Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern Virginia, and the other involved an attack on a similar class-based affirmative action program at the Boston exam schools, like Boston Latin. In both cases, the Supreme Court said we're not gonna hear those cases over the vehement dissent of a couple of extremely conservative justices. So I'm fairly confident that the Supreme Court will not go down the path of striking down economic-based preferences. What do you make of this move by the Trump administration to ask colleges for data? I'm of two minds about it. I do think transparency is good in higher education. These institutions are receiving lots of taxpayer money. We want to make sure they're following the Supreme Court ruling, which said you can't use race. Having said that, I'm quite nervous about how the Trump administration will use the data, because if a college discloses the average SAT scores and grades by race of applicants, of those admitted, and then those enrolled, one of two things can be going on. One is that the university's cheating and they're using racial preferences, and that would be a violation of the law. The other possibility is that they did shift to economic affirmative action, which is perfectly legal. And because Black and Hispanic students are disproportionately low income and working class, they will disproportionately benefit from a class-based affirmative action program. And so the average SAT score is going to look somewhat lower. I'm worried that the Trump administration will go after both race-based and class-based affirmative action. Because class-based affirmative action still might mean a college is admitting more Black and Hispanic students. And what the Trump administration seems to have the issue with is that fact. Yes. Increasingly, that's what it looks like. As long as the Trump administration was focused on counting race and deciding who gets ahead, they had the American public on their side. But Americans also support the idea of racially integrated student bodies, they just don't like racial preferences as the means for getting there. So, if Trump says, no matter how you achieve this racial diversity, I'm just opposed to racial diversity, he'll have lost the public. And I don't think he will be consistent with the legal framework under Students for Fair Admissions, either. Do you think he cares?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender policy
A GENDER-CRITICAL group is taking action against the Scottish Government over policies it says are 'inconsistent' with the Supreme Court ruling on gender. For Women Scotland's legal battle with Scottish ministers on the definition of a woman ended in the UK's highest court, which ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. However, the group said that it now has 'little choice' but to take further legal action as some policies regarding transgender pupils in schools and transgender people in custody remain in place – which the group said is 'in clear breach of the law'. The schools guidance for single-sex toilets says it is important that young people 'where possible, are able to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with'. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon has shown 'complete lack of human decency,' says Alex Salmond's niece The prison guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the women's estate if the person does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis to suppose that she poses an unacceptable risk of harm to those housed in the women's estate. For Women Scotland has now applied to the Court of Session seeking to quash the policies, which it says are 'inconsistent with the UK Supreme Court judgment of April 16 2025'. It has raised an ordinary action for reduction (quashing) of the policies relating to schools and prisons, with the news first reported by the Sunday Times Scotland. In a statement, the group said: 'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action, and both policies remain stubbornly in place, to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls, leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action. 'The Scottish ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then, we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court. 'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. 'We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.' READ MORE: Police Scotland 'breaching human rights to subdue Palestine protests', activists say A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.' For Women Scotland previously brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. Originally, this had included transgender women who self-identify or had a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), before the Scottish Government amended the guidance. FWS repeatedly lost their case in the Scottish courts, before taking the case to the Supreme Court.
