Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case from a minor whose Massachusetts middle school refused to let him wear a shirt that said "THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS," reinvigorating the debate about how much latitude public schools have to restrict students' speech in the classroom.
The plaintiff—a 12-year-old 7th grader at the time of the incident, identified as L.M. in the lawsuit—was booted from class in 2023 and sent home from Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, after he refused to change clothes. When he came back wearing a shirt that said "THERE ARE CENSORED GENDERS"—the same shirt but with "CENSORED" written across a piece of tape—he was sent to meet with the principal, who said he could keep the shirt in his backpack or in the assistant principal's office. He obliged and returned to class.
When L.M. first sued, alleging a First Amendment violation, Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the school likely acted within its rights and thus denied his request for a preliminary injunction. "School administrators were well within their discretion to conclude that the statement 'THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS' may communicate that only two gender identities—male and female—are valid, and any others are invalid or nonexistent," she wrote, "and to conclude that students who identify differently, whether they do so openly or not, have a right to attend school without being confronted by messages attacking their identities."
At the core of the case, and those like it, is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the 1969 Supreme Court precedent in which the justices ruled 7–2 it was unconstitutional when an Iowa school suspended students who wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. "It can hardly be argued," wrote Justice Abe Fortas, "that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Tinker, however, came with a caveat. Schools can seek to stymie expression that causes, or could potentially cause, a "substantial disruption," a test that courts have struggled with for decades.
When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit heard L.M.'s case next, this tension was at the center of the opinion. The shirt here was analogous to the Tinker armbands in that its message was expressed "passively, silently, and without mentioning any specific students," the judges wrote. But it diverged, the court said, in that it "assertedly demean[ed] characteristics of personal identity, such as race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation." (Jason Carroll, the assistant principal, said there was concern that L.M.'s shirt "would be disruptive and would cause students in the LGBTQ+ community to feel unsafe.")
The court responded with a two-prong test it said was in line with Tinker. A school may censor passive expression if it "is reasonably interpreted to demean one of those characteristics of personal identity, given the common understanding that such characteristics are unalterable or otherwise deeply rooted" and "the demeaning message is reasonably forecasted to poison the educational atmosphere due to its serious negative psychological impact on students."
It's ironic that the court would rely on the notion of a "common understanding" to buttress its decision when considering that a hefty majority—65 percent as of 2023—of American adults believe there are only two gender identities. It is not a particularly contentious point, despite it often being portrayed that way. That such a basic statement could be seen as too offensive—regardless of whether someone identifies as gender-nonconforming—is not an encouraging stance for any institution to take, much less one devoted to education.
That is especially relevant here, however, as Nichols Middle School allowed students to challenge the idea that there are only two genders. You don't need to agree with the student's shirt to support his right to contribute to that conversation. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech, after all—something school administrators should understand, given that their position is, in reality, the unpopular one in society today.
It's for that reason that, in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the school had violated the First Amendment's shield against viewpoint discrimination. "If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues," he wrote. "If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination."
The post Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
In US court, due process rulings have been word for word
In orders asserting their Advertisement They pointed to language in a landmark 1982 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the rights of undocumented children to a free public education, which reads: 'even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.' US District Judge Indira Talwani, in an order issued April 28, was the first to stress the constitutional rights of immigrants, when she prevented the government from transferring an immigrant to another jurisdiction. The next day, Judge Leo T. Sorokin wrote a nearly identical order, then a dozen other judges adopted that language in orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants who filed habeas petitions. The rulings have provided critical relief for immigrants in Massachusetts at a time when many are immediately being shipped to detention facilities hundreds of miles away or deported without a hearing, according to advocates. Advertisement 'It's been heartening to see,' said attorney Benjamin Tymann, who represents several immigrants who filed habeas petitions. 'These are completely reasonable orders for judges to put in place because all they are saying is, 'OK, let's hit pause' ... and make the government make some showing on the merits of their arrest.'' Immigration lawyers have accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement of moving immigrants across the country to disrupt or delay efforts to challenge their arrests and removal from the United States, and to place them under the jurisdiction of more conservative federal courts. In one case, US District Judge Denise Casper temporarily barred the government from transferring 25-year-old Luis Fernando Olmos Ramirez while she considered his claim that ICE violated his rights when its agents arrested him in Lynn on May 24. Tymann argued there was 'no lawful basis' to arrest Ramirez, who was granted special immigrant juvenile status after coming to the United States from his native El Salvador as an unaccompanied minor in 2015 and has since lived with his father in Lynn. He has no criminal record and has an application pending for a Green card, according to Tymann. In her order, Casper wrote that relocating Ramirez to a facility outside Massachusetts 'will exponentially increase the risks that he will be further deprived of due process and unlawfully removed from the United States to dangerous conditions in El Salvador or elsewhere.' On June 10, Ramirez voluntarily dismissed his petition after an immigration judge released him on bond. But Tymann credits Casper's intervention with paving the way for his release. Advertisement 'Without the no-transfer order, he may have been sent to Texas or somewhere else,' Tymann said. US Attorney Leah Foley, whose office represents the government in habeas petition cases, acknowledged in a statement that the Supreme Court 'has established that all persons in the United States have Constitutional protections, regardless of their immigration status.' She said her office has no authority to tell ICE where to house immigrants in its custody, but immediately forwards the agency the judges' orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants. A spokesperson for ICE did not respond to requests for comment about the habeas petitions and allegations that agents have made unlawful arrests. But the agency has made clear that it has worked to ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons said during a press conference last month that agents were targeting dangerous and violent criminals, but will arrest anyone they encounter who is in the country illegally. And he argued that their rights are not being violated. 'ICE doesn't just scoop people off the street and remove them,' Lyons said. 'Everyone gets due process and that is what the US attorney's office is for. It's what the immigration courts are for.' Some of the petitions before US District Court judges were filed by people who entered the country without permission, then surrendered themselves to immigration officials and had been allowed to remain free as they pursued lawful status. They allege they were arrested without probable cause or due process while driving to work or dropping their children off at school. Advertisement In some cases, petitioners allege they were leaving the Chelmsford immigration court after judges set hearings for a future date, only to be arrested in the hallways by immigration agents and told they were facing expedited removal from the country. 'What we are seeing in this country is just an assault on the rule of law,' said attorney Todd Pomerleau, whose Boston firm, Rubin Pomerleau, filed habeas petitions on behalf of five immigrants in recent weeks. One of Pomerleau's clients, Andre Damasio Ferreira, 40, was born in Brazil, came to the United States nearly 20 years ago, and lives in Everett with his wife, who is battling cancer. Their two children, 13 and 8, are US citizens. Ferreira, who works for a flooring company, was a passenger in a pickup truck being driven by a co-worker on May 30 when they were stopped by armed ICE agents who demanded to see their passports and questioned them about their immigration status, according to Pomerleau. Ferreira was arrested and is being held at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility pending removal proceedings. US District Judge William G. Young issued an order June 5 temporarily blocking Ferreira's transfer out of state, using the same language as his colleagues while stressing Ferreira's constitutional rights. Young wrote that although federal district courts don't generally have jurisdiction to review orders of removal by an immigration court, they do have jurisdiction over violations of the Constitution. The government argued in court filings on June 12 that Ferreira's arrest was lawful and urged Young to dismiss his petition. ICE agents stopped Ferreira because he looked like someone else they were targeting, then discovered he was unlawfully present in the country and had previously been removed in 2005, according to the government. The judge has yet to rule on the case. Advertisement In at least two cases, immigrants were mistakenly transferred — one to Louisiana and the other to Mississippi — in violation of judges' orders, according to court filings. The US attorney's office apologized and the petitioners were brought back to the state. Though judges have issued orders halting transfers by the Trump administration as early as January, they specifically began adopting the language reinforcing immigrants' constitutional rights after the arrest of Tufts PhD student She was arrested by masked ICE agents outside her Somerville apartment in March. By the time her lawyers filed last month, a federal judge in Vermont ordered her released, while he considers her claim that the government violated her free speech and due process rights. 'Now we are seeing a lot more detentions that violate due process rights and that's not an issue that immigration judges are usually able to address,' said Shantanu Chatterjee, a Chelsea attorney who has filed habeas petitions on behalf of several immigrants. He said more immigration lawyers are seeking relief for their clients in federal district courts. The flurry of rulings 'sends a message to everyone that Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Wall Street Journal
3 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Trump-Era Rollback of Transgender Rights Is Gaining Steam
Voters in at least 10 states have elected a transgender person to their legislature. A transgender man has argued a case before the Supreme Court. Last year, the first transgender woman was elected to Congress. Transgender people have become visible in ways that were unthinkable five years ago, a development that advocates thought would generate more societal acceptance. And yet, the political and legal tides are shifting in a different direction.
