SCOTUS Declines to Hear Student’s Bid to Wear ‘Two Genders’ Shirt to School

### What happened

In March 2023, a seventh-grader at John T. Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, wore a black T-shirt that read **“There are only two genders.”** The student’s father and legal counsel argue the shirt expressed his viewpoint on gender identity and was not directed at any specific individual. 

School administrators asked the student to remove the shirt or leave class on the grounds that the message could demean transgender or gender-nonconforming students and disrupt the educational environment. The school dress code prohibited clothing that “states, implies, or depicts hate speech or imagery that target(s) groups based on … gender identity.” 

The student’s attorneys sued, claiming the school had violated his First Amendment rights of free speech. A federal district court ruled for the school. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the school reasonable in its forecast that the message would have a negative impact on the students’ ability to learn. 

On May 27, 2025, SCOTUS declined to take the case. In refusing review, the Court left the lower-court decision in place. Two justices—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—dissented, arguing the issue raises serious questions about viewpoint discrimination in student speech. 

—

### Why this matters

* **Student speech rights**: The case touches on the long-standing precedent from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), which held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate,” but also that school authorities may regulate speech if it would “materially and substantially interfere” with school operations.

* **Viewpoint discrimination**: The dissenters warned that the refusal to hear the case leaves unresolved whether a school may suppress a student’s viewpoint simply because it is controversial or opposed by others. Alito’s dissent stated the Court should clarify how Tinker applies in modern contexts. 

* **School authority vs. individual rights**: The decision underscores the balance between a school’s interest in protecting students (including those who are transgender or gender-nonconforming) and the right of dissenting students to express their views.

* **Implications for LGBT+ inclusive environments**: Schools increasingly grapple with how to create safe spaces for transgender and gender-nonconforming students. Message regulation in dress codes is one part of this larger landscape.

—

### Key elements of the case

* **Student & message**: The student, then 12, wore a shirt stating his belief that there are only two genders. Lawyers argued this was a viewpoint on an ongoing public debate. 

* **School response**: The school concluded the message could disrupt the learning environment and negatively affect vulnerable students, relying on the dress‐code regulation concerning targeted group messaging. 

* **Legal journey**:

  * District court found no First Amendment violation.

  * First Circuit upheld, using the “reasonable forecast of harm” standard.

  * SCOTUS declined appeal, leaving the ruling in place.

* **Dissent**: Justices Alito and Thomas wrote separately, arguing the case demonstrates a real split over how schools regulate speech and urged the Court to provide clarity.

—

### What’s next

While SCOTUS declined review this time, several outcomes may follow:

* The lower-court precedent (First Circuit) now stands in the region — meaning other schools may rely on it in regulating similar student speech.

* Advocates for student free speech may push for cases in other jurisdictions to reach SCOTUS on this or similar issues.

* Schools may revise dress-code policies or training materials to reflect the boundaries indicated by this case.

* The broader debates around gender identity, student expression, and safe educational climates will continue to play out in other legal venues.

—

### Bottom line

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case isn’t an endorsement of the school’s action or a dismissal of student free speech rights; rather, it leaves in place a regionally binding interpretation that a public school may bar a shirt bearing “There are only two genders” if it reasonably forecasts disruption or harm to other students. The decision underscores how the law remains unsettled when it comes to student speech and viewpoint versus school climate.

For students, educators, and parents alike, this case serves as an important marker — illustrating how speech rights remain constrained in school settings, especially when the message touches on identity, inclusion, and controversy.