Justices Allow School to Bar Student From Wearing ‘Only Two Genders' Shirt
The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand an appeals court decision that allowed a public school in Massachusetts to prohibit a seventh grader from wearing a T-shirt that said 'There Are Only Two Genders,' declining to hear the case over heated dissents from two conservative justices.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court should have agreed to take the case and ruled for the student on free speech grounds.
'If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like L.G.B.T.Q.+ rights or gender identity,' Justice Alito wrote, 'then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues.'
The opinion illustrated a split among the members of the court's six-member conservative supermajority, said Justin Driver, a law professor at Yale.
'The dissent both illuminates and underscores a significant divide among the six Republican-appointed justices,' he said, 'with Alito and Thomas comfortable voicing positions that the other four would prefer to avoid.'
There was a similar split in a second case the justices declined to hear on Tuesday, as they let stand a ruling clearing the way for copper mining on sacred Indian land. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, the court's most committed supporter of Native American rights, issued a dissent joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito recused himself but did not say why.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
an hour ago
- News24
Onderstepoort collapse ‘left SA defenceless', says Steenhuisen as foot-and-mouth surges
Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once.
The Intercept
an hour ago
- The Intercept
Trump Travel Ban Punishes Victims of the U.S. War Machine
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation banning travelers from 12 countries from entering the United States and partially restricting visitors from seven other nations. 'We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court,' wrote Trump in a written statement. The restriction goes into effect on Monday, June 9. The full ban applies to foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The partial ban applies to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. In a video address posted on social media, Trump said a recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, 'underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas.' He added, 'We don't want 'em.' The man charged with that attack is from Egypt, which is not one of the countries listed in the travel ban. The list overlaps with the sites of U.S. military and CIA misadventures stretching back more than a century, including Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered many who have worked to resettle its people in America. The travel ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, or SIV — a classification granted to people who worked closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there. That still leaves many former allies and their families on the outside looking in. The ban also comes as the Department of Homeland Security's termination of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for Afghanistan is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. During America's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. government helped evacuate around 80,000 Afghans who aided U.S. forces, ranging from interpreters to CIA-trained fighters and their families, including members of so-called Zero Units implicated in the killings of civilians. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day back in office. Andrew Sullivan, a U.S. Army veteran and the executive director of No One Left Behind, which advocates on behalf of SIV applicants, expressed gratitude for the Trump administration's exemption for Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders. 'However, there are still many allies who served shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States who are being left behind because they do not qualify for the SIV program,' he said. 'This includes those who were injured in the line of duty and were unable to complete a full year of service, the women and men of the Afghan National Army who trained and served with U.S. Special Forces, and many more.' 'People in other nations fall victim to the same cycle — trusting U.S. promises, only to be abandoned when perceived strategic interests shift.' Trump's Afghan abandonment isn't unique, however. It follows in a long tradition of American desertion of wartime allies that includes partners from Southeast Asia — like Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia — to the Middle East. 'This isn't a Trump-era phenomenon; it's a pattern that spans decades, from Vietnam to Afghanistan and from Kurds to Ukrainians,' said Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy, an advocacy group critical of mainstream Washington foreign policy. 'It's no secret that ostensible American partners in the developing world often end up worse off as a result of Washington's actions. Yet time and again, people in other nations fall victim to the same cycle — trusting U.S. promises, only to be abandoned when perceived strategic interests shift.' Afghanistan was not part of Trump's first-term travel ban but, in the time since, fell to the Taliban when the U.S. withdrew its forces in 2021 under the Biden administration. This resulted from a peace deal with the Taliban signed by the Trump administration in 2020. Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.' He also cited its visa overstay rates as a reason for the nation's inclusion in the new travel ban. Sullivan said many U.S. allies would be harmed by the restrictions. 'They stood by us in war but now face danger because of their service with no clear way out,' he told The Intercept. 'We must keep our promise to them as well.' Earlier this week, around 100 members of Congress called on the Trump Administration to reverse its decision to end TPS for Afghans. 'This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country,' they wrote, noting that it would negatively impact approximately 9,000 Afghan nationals. 'Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions.' Sperling said the United States should be upfront about its history of abandoning its partners when they outlive their usefulness. 'If American policymakers are serious about building durable soft power around the world, they should reckon with this history and ensure that future allies understand the risks before taking U.S. advice,' he told The Intercept, noting that America's latest exercise in ally abandonment may have far reaching consequences. 'Many Afghans reasonably relied on U.S. promises and put their trust in the U.S.-backed plans for their country,' he said. 'Turning our back on them now is both immoral as well as a strategic blunder that will undermine U.S. interests in the region for the foreseeable future.'
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Straight Woman In ‘Reverse Discrimination' Case
Lawsuits for 'reverse discrimination' will face an easier path after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided on Thursday with a woman who argued that she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is straight. The court's ruling is a departure from previous court decisions that have set a higher bar in cases where people who are part of a majority group, such as those who are white and straight, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination under federal civil rights law. But the Supreme Court said in its ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, among other characteristics, 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court. The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man. She sued under Title VII, alleging in her lawsuit that she was denied the promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. Her supervisors, however, said Ames was passed over for the promotion because she didn't have the vision and leadership skills needed for the role and demoted because they had concerns about her leadership skills. Lower courts had previously ruled against Ames, saying her lawsuit failed to demonstrate 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' But the Supreme Court ruled that requirement was 'not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
