A Massachusetts middle schooler’s bold stand for free speech just hit a Supreme Court roadblock.
Breitbart reported that in 2023, Nichols Middle School barred seventh-grader Liam Morrison from wearing a shirt declaring, “There are only two genders,” sparking a legal battle that reached the nation’s highest court, which declined to hear the case on Tuesday.
Morrison’s school sent him home for the shirt, claiming it disrupted the learning environment.
His father and stepmother, Christopher and Susan Morrison, backed by Alliance Defending Freedom, sued, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the school’s decision in June 2024.
Nichols Middle School actively promotes pro-LGBTQ+ events like “PRIDE Spirit Week” while silencing Morrison’s dissenting view.
This selective enforcement reeks of viewpoint discrimination, punishing students who stray from the progressive script. The school’s actions suggest free speech is only free if it aligns with their agenda.
Morrison, undeterred, later wore a redacted shirt with “censored” replacing “two.” The school forced him to change again, doubling down on their censorship. Apparently, even a critique of their heavy-handedness was too much for administrators to handle.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case drew sharp dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Thomas argued the First Circuit “distorted” First Amendment precedents. His point cuts deep: schools shouldn’t twist constitutional protections to fit their ideological mold.
Alito called the ruling a blow to students’ First Amendment protections. “Thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights,” he warned. That’s a chilling reality for kids caught in the crosshairs of woke school policies.
Alito further noted that schools promoting social issues like gender identity must tolerate dissenting voices.
“Viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable,” he said. Forcing kids to conform while preaching “inclusion” is hypocrisy at its finest.
The 1969 Tinker case set a clear standard: schools can’t restrict student speech unless it “materially disrupts” education or invades others’ rights. Nichols Middle School’s vague claims of disruption don’t pass muster under Tinker. Feelings aren’t facts, and discomfort isn’t disorder.
ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s pass. “Students don’t lose their free speech rights the moment they walk into a school building,” he said. Schools can’t cherry-pick which views get a megaphone while silencing others.
Cortman highlighted the school’s blatant bias. “The school actively promotes its view about gender through posters and ‘Pride’ events,” he noted. Yet, Morrison’s shirt was deemed a step too far—proof the school’s commitment to “diversity” excludes dissent.
Cortman stressed that the government can’t silence speech just because it disapproves. “Our legal system is built on the truth that the government cannot silence any speaker,” he said. That principle should be a no-brainer, but some schools seem to need a refresher.
Alito’s dissent underscored the broader issue: lower courts are confused about balancing student rights and school authority. “Our Nation’s students, teachers, and administrators deserve clarity,” he urged. The Supreme Court’s sidestep leaves that confusion festering.
Morrison’s case exposes a troubling trend: schools prioritizing ideology over constitutional protections. When a seventh-grader’s T-shirt sparks a federal lawsuit, something’s gone awry. Actions have consequences, and schools should expect consequences when stifling speech.