The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal in the case of a Massachusetts public school student punished for wearing a shirt stating, “There are only 2 genders.”
In an orders list released Tuesday morning, the high court declined to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, et. al.
As a result, an earlier ruling from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against the minor student and his parents is allowed to stand.
Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion to the denial of the petition, which was included in the orders list. He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
“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,” wrote Alito.
“So long as the First Circuit’s opinion is on the books, thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights. That alone is worth this Court’s attention.”
In March 2023, Liam Morrison, a John T. Nichols Middle School student, was removed from class and ordered to remove his shirt because it said, “There are only two genders.”
Later that year, Morrison wore the shirt again, though he put tape over the “only two” part, writing the word “censored” on the tape. Once again, school officials told him to change his clothes.
According to an interview shortly after the incident, Morrison claimed that many of his classmates supported his actions and that he encouraged people of all viewpoints to express their beliefs.
“Always fight for what you believe in. and well, never let anyone stop you from believing,” he added. “But, it’s being taken away from us. And being able to speak up not just about your own opinion, but for everybody else.”
A lawsuit was filed on his behalf by his parents, with the complaint accusing the school of violating Morrison’s First Amendment rights. The school argued that the shirt violated the official dress code, which prohibited clothing with hateful messaging.
A three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit unanimously ruled against Morrison in June 2024, upholding a lower court decision.
Circuit Chief Judge David Barron, an Obama appointee, authored the panel opinion, concluding that, under certain circumstances, “school officials may bar passive and silently expressed messages by students at school that target no specific student.”
Barron added that while “in many realms of public life one must bear the risk of being subjected to messages that are demeaning of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation,” the court does not believe “that our public schools must be a similarly unregulated place.”
“L.M. himself acknowledged at oral argument that schools could bar silent, passive expression that described persons who identify as transgender in obviously highly demeaning terms but targeted no specific individual,” wrote Barron.
Seeing that we only have five days left here on CAC I just want to…
https://youtu.be/asnq3eordPA Was Joe Biden the first deep state-appointed president of the United States? According to the…
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will…
Isaiah 58:8-9a Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall…
By Tom Gilbreath In Washington, DC, a gunman kills Jews for being Jews. He seems…
Some of this short list are Christian concerns and some are just weird things. Please…
View Comments
Free speech is free unless one doesn't follow the liberal agenda.
https://youtu.be/gowgfivrR9g?si=aczO21SwnRyLfAoS
It’s disappointing when an institution like the Supreme Court appears unwilling to defend fundamental freedoms like free speech and personal rights—especially considering some of the conservative justices appointed by Trump. I’m open to the possibility that they declined a recent case because a stronger one may be in the pipeline, which they’re waiting for to set a more definitive precedent.
Still, it’s hard to ignore how deeply corrupting the Washington "swamp" can be.
Lately, I’ve been using AI quite a bit. It’s incredibly helpful in business—speeding up tasks and streamlining productivity. I’ve even used it to explore theological questions, since it can quickly reference what classic theologians have said on various topics.
For example, I recently debated the idea that God became fully human in the person of Jesus. The AI held a fairly orthodox Christian position, and our discussion was thoughtful and well-informed. You can read it here: https://qr.ae/pAa5cB
However, I was disappointed when I raised questions about transgenderism. I asked a simple, direct question: Is it wrong to physically and permanently damage a child? The answer was a clear “yes.” But when I applied that question to transgender practices involving minors, the AI suddenly became vague and evasive—talking about sensitivity, empathy, and deferring to medical experts, rather than giving a straightforward response.
In computing, there’s a principle called GIGO—“garbage in, garbage out.” That’s exactly what’s happening with how the AI handles transgender topics. It’s been programmed to avoid criticism of certain practices. Depending on how the question is phrased, it might show disapproval—but once it detects the question is challenging transgender procedures, it quickly becomes non-committal.
On a different discussion forum, I’ve been engaging with some anti-Semitic, left-leaning criticism of Israel’s actions against Hamas. Out of curiosity, I asked an AI about the situation, and it responded with a surprisingly pro-Israel stance. I found that interesting—how the programmers’ worldviews can influence some responses, though not all. Many answers are fairly neutral. But when it comes to politically charged topics, the AI often leans toward what's considered the “politically correct” position.