Supreme Court denies student's right to wear ‘only two genders' T-shirt at school
Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from 'hate speech' or bullying.
After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative, culture war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case 'presented an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor.'
Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school's promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to 'rise up to protect trans and gender non-confirming students.'
Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said 'There are only two genders.'
A teacher reported him to the principal who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word 'censored' taped over the words 'two genders' but was sent home again.
The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful.
In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that forbid licensed counselors from using 'conversion therapy' with minors.
That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children 'opt out' of the classroom use of a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks.
The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump's executive order declaring the U.S. government will 'recognize two sexes, male and female,' not 'an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity.'
While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools.
In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld school officials at Poway High School in San Diego who barred a student from wearing a T-shirt that said 'Homosexuality is shameful.' The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make 'derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.'
Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt.
In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy's father said his son's T-shirt message was not 'directed at any particular person' but dealt with a 'hot political topic.'
In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against 'bullying' and a dress code that says 'clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.'
Lawyers for the ADF sued on the student's behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt 'invaded the rights of the other students..to a safe and secure educational environment.'
The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or 'poison the atmosphere' at school.
The Supreme Court's most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren Court ruled for high school students who wore black arm bands as a protest.
In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate....For school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.'
The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a 'substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.'
The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard.
'This case isn't about T-shirts. It's about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn't allowed to express a view that it differs from their own,' said David Cortman, an ADF attorney in the case of L.M vs. Town of Middleborough.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
38 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump wins big on the Supreme Court's "shadow docket"
The Supreme Court has handed President Trump a slew of major victories through an abbreviated process that doesn't require full-fledged briefings and arguments — and will likely continue to do so. The big picture: The court's "emergency docket" has been the focus of its activity in Trump's second term, allowing him to proceed with plans to fire government workers, proceed with mass deportations and ban transgender people from serving in the military. The court's actions on those issues are all temporary, but even temporary orders are a significant win for Trump, allowing him to implement some of the most controversial parts of his agenda. How it works: When the Supreme Court agrees to decide a case on the merits, it typically asks both parties to file written briefs articulating their legal theories. It invites outside experts and organizations to file their own "friend of the court" briefs, which can raise additional points; and holds oral arguments before the justices decide how they'll rule. The emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket, is designed for questions that need a faster answer. It's often used, for example, by inmates requesting a stay of execution (which the justices almost always deny). A growing number of political issues, though, are also finding their way onto the emergency docket, and some critics argue that the court is using the process to decide bigger questions than that process was designed to resolve. Orders on the emergency docket aren't rulings on the merits of a particular policy. They usually determine whether a policy can go into effect, not whether it's legal. Because they're not full-fledged rulings that lower courts need to rely on when interpreting the law, there's no majority opinion to explain the court's thinking, or even a definitive tally of which justices agreed with the order. Where it stands: Lower courts have handed down scores of orders that temporarily block Trump from implementing parts of his agenda. That type of order gets appealed through the emergency docket — and the justices have overruled lower courts on several hot-button issues. Just last week, the court allowed Trump to proceed with plans for mass firings across the federal government. It allowed the administration to deport a group of undocumented immigrants to South Sudan, a war-torn country to which the migrants had no connection, and other "third countries" that are not the U.S. and not migrants' native countries. The Supreme Court overruled lower-court orders that limited DOGE's access to Social Security records and made some of its work subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It also allowed the Pentagon to go ahead and prohibit trans people from serving. None of those are final rulings on whether Trump's plans are legal or not, but they still have an immediate impact. They may not ever get to the merits stage, and even if they do, actions like mass firings or sending migrants halfway across the world are immediate. Even if some of those firings are ultimately found to be illegal, for example, that hardly means every former worker will return to their old job. A ruling in Trump's favor on the emergency docket can also indicate that he's likely to win on the merits, too. What's next: This will likely continue. There are at least two more emergency petitions awaiting an answer from the court,
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: President Backs Bondi and Tells Backers Not to ‘Waste Time' on Epstein Inquiry
Downtown Juba, South Sudan, last year. Third-country deportations could accelerate under new internal guidance issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Eight days after U.S. authorities deported eight migrants to war-torn South Sudan, ending a monthslong legal struggle, their fate remains unclear. The Trump administration, which called the men 'the worst of the worst,' says it is no longer responsible for the group. The government of South Sudan said in a statement that the men, all of whom had been convicted of crimes in the United States, were 'under the care of the relevant authorities,' but said nothing about their whereabouts or their futures. None of their family members have heard from them since they landed just before midnight on July 4, according to their legal team. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the South Sudan deportations pass legal muster, immigration experts say it is likely that the Trump administration will expand the use of so-called 'third-country' deportations, an aggressive tactic in which migrants are sent to countries other than their home nations. Citing the ruling, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday issued new internal guidance that could help accelerate third-country deportations. According to the guidance, when a country has provided 'credible diplomatic assurances' that deportees will not be subjected to torture or persecution, deportations can proceed without delay. When the United States has not received those guarantees, the guidance calls for ICE to inform migrants that they are being sent to a specific country. But it does not require the agency to ask if the migrant fears deportation to that country. The new agency rules appear to allow deportations in a few as six hours, provided the migrant does not raise objections beforehand. 'Because the Supreme Court let them do this, I think they're now feeling emboldened to do it on a more widespread scale,' said Trina Realmuto, a lawyer representing the migrants sent to South Sudan. The lack of information about the eight men, she added, 'creates fear' and puts their family members 'in an untenable position.' Ms. Realmuto called the new guidance 'unlawful,' noting that her team had already pushed back against an earlier version in court. The men sent to South Sudan hailed from six countries; only one came from South Sudan. A New York Times investigation found that administration officials have approached more than 50 countries about accepting deportees from the United States. As President Trump builds the infrastructure to carry out mass deportations, with domestic military deployments and $165 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, third-country agreements could offer a path to swiftly move large numbers of detainees out of U.S. custody with little due process. ICE has long reported difficulty in getting countries to accept their own nationals, because of a lack of diplomatic relations, an inability to get travel documents quickly enough, or, in some cases, because the migrants had been convicted of crimes. Migrants from these countries have been detained for long periods of time or released into the United States. But the approach still faces some obstacles. Federal judges continue to grapple with the question of whether the agreements with third countries mean the United States still has 'constructive custody' of migrants deported under those deals, and some ongoing legal responsibility for their treatment. And the lack of information about detainees sent to South Sudan and El Salvador has drawn charges from a group of independent experts appointed by the United Nations that the United States may be engaging in 'enforced disappearance,' state-sponsored abductions that are banned under international law. Image Detainees inside the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, in El Salvador in March. Credit... Fred Ramos for The New York Times In April, the U.N. experts issued a statement that U.S. deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador 'appeared to involve enforced disappearances.' Last Tuesday, days after the Supreme Court ruled that the flight to South Sudan could move forward, the experts broadened their concerns to include the Trump administration's deportation policies more generally. Gabriella Citroni, an international law expert who chairs the U.N. group, said U.S. officials had 'not been cooperative' in response to their questions, adding that as recently as a year ago, the United States was 'very responsive.' A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman declined to comment. The United States is not a party to the treaty that makes enforced disappearances a crime, and in some cases a crime against humanity, under international law. The term is often associated with Latin American military dictatorships from the Cold War era that abducted their own citizens. The Biden administration called them 'an egregious human rights violation' and criticized authoritarian adversaries like Russia and China for inflicting them on dissidents and ethnic minorities. In September, the U.N. experts will deliver a formal update on their consideration of the deportations as part of their annual report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which the Trump administration withdrew from in February. They will present again at the New York meeting of the U.N. General Assembly later in the fall. The investigation is already having direct consequences in U.S. courts. A report from Ms. Citroni's group was filed as evidence by lawyers representing a group of Venezuelan men in federal court last week. It appeared to show contradictions in how the United States and El Salvador had described the legal status of migrants who were deported to El Salvador and detained in a high-security prison. In those documents, the government of El Salvador told the U.N. group that detaining deportees from the United States was 'within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement' of 'that other state,' referring to the United States. That contradicted statements made in court by U.S. officials that the United States did not have 'constructive custody' of Venezuelans held in El Salvador, and that they were now beyond U.S. control. The Trump administration has responded to criticism by U.N. officials in other contexts with indifference and occasional hostility. But if the charges of enforced disappearance gather momentum, that could mean further withering of the postwar image of the United States as a champion of freedom and democracy. 'This is really detrimental to U.S. standing in the international community,' said Natalie Cadwalader-Schultheis, an immigration attorney who alerted U.S. border practices to the U.N. 'There will be consequences with other countries who are alarmed over this erosion of human rights.' Legal experts also fear the Trump administration could seek to expand aggressive deportation measures even more, perhaps to U.S. citizens, as Mr. Trump has suggested. 'Homegrowns are next,' he said after an April White House meeting with Nayib Bukele, El Salvador's president. 'You got to build about five more places.' That scenario isn't as far-fetched as it might sound, according to a former official who served in the Biden administration. 'If we're grabbing people off the street — which we are — what makes us have any confidence that arbitrary detentions won't extend further?' asked Ambassador Michèle Taylor, who represented the United States at the U.N. Human Rights Council until earlier this year, and who supported Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s 2020 presidential campaign. 'Especially from an administration that has indicated they will go after their political enemies. Where does it end?' The willingness of the Trump administration to send migrants to countries like Libya and South Sudan, critics have noted, represents a reversal of a longstanding U.S. policy against sending migrants to places where they might be at risk of torture or persecution. Known as 'non-refoulement,' that principle is woven through U.S. immigration laws governing asylum, as well as the Convention Against Torture, another international treaty, provisions of which the United States ratified in 1994. The lack of information about the South Sudan deportees is troubling, said John R. Bolton, who served as Mr. Trump's national security adviser during his first term. A longtime critic of the U.N., Mr. Bolton said domestic politics, not international law, was the right forum to debate the deportations. But, he added: 'The purpose of deportations is to remove illegal aliens, particularly aliens who have committed crimes in the U.S. Why harm that effort by making moves that could hurt us politically or legally elsewhere? It's a self-inflicted wound.' Image Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti last year. The deported men were held in shackles for weeks inside an air-conditioned shipping container. Credit... Getty Images The administration has emphasized that all the men sent to South Sudan had been convicted of violent crimes, though many had either completed or were nearing the end of their sentences. The men were held in shackles for weeks inside an air-conditioned shipping container at Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. military base in Djibouti. A federal judge in Boston had paused their deportations on due-process grounds, ruling that they could not be sent to South Sudan without first having the opportunity to voice a reasonable fear of torture. The government appealed the judge's order to the Supreme Court and won. The administration has told the court that South Sudan has given it diplomatic assurances the men will not face torture. In its statement last week, South Sudan's government said it would 'adhere to the rule of law, international obligations and norms.' For now, the location of the men is unknown. In an interview with Politico published on Friday, Tom Homan, Mr. Trump's border czar, said he did not know if the eight men were still being detained in South Sudan, or where they would ultimately wind up. 'There's like a hundred different endings to this,' he said. 'I do not know.' Hamed Aleaziz and Maura Ajak contributed reporting.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Absurdity' of A-G's opposition must be terminated, Israeli gov't tells High Court
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel said that the government's response 'clearly reveals the serious flaws' in its dismissal attempts. After receiving an extension for its response to the High Court of Justice on the attempts to fire Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, the government on Sunday doubled down on its position in its response, explaining that it is unreasonable to force the government to work with a legal adviser 'that is actively working against its policies.' The position, authored by Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Diaspora Affairs and Combatting Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli, pointed to what it described as 'absurd,' that the government can't be legally represented by its own lawyer -the attorney-general - in the rising list of cases where they clash. 'We expect the court to acknowledge this absurdity. The Attorney-General worked systematically to cut the cord between her office and the government, we now expect the court to finish it off,' reads the position. Part of the issue, which has been long-present in legal debate, is that the attorney-general wears two hats: it heads the prosecution, meaning it represents the government's position in significant cases, and it also is the chief legal adviser to the government and considered the weightiest interpreter of the law. When her interpretation of the law differs from the government, her office can't represent it, leading to the sticky situation the two authorities are in today. A ministerial committee is scheduled to convene tomorrow to discuss her dismissal, the hastened solution Levin has been pushing, after he failed to fill the positions needed for the public-professional committee that would oversee the process, hand in hand with the government. Petitions to freeze the hearing have been submitted, which the government insisted in its decision should be wholly rejected. Levin's decision to leave the process instead in the hands of ministers has faced fierce criticism for politicizing a delicate and sensitive topic. Proponents argue that the situation is so dire as to make the work relationship between the government and the attorney-general obsolete. In the last line of the decision, the ministers note that an injunction against the ministerial hearing would be 'wildly exceptional' and 'fundamentally opposed to the legal principle by which legal overview should take place after an act has been committed, not before.' The government called for the injunction requests to be rejected. The decision did not address the attorney-general's position, concretized in several advisery opinions over the past few weeks, that the legislation to dismiss her has far-reaching consequences for the legal advisery as a whole and for whoever her successor may be - it would politicize a powerful key position, viewed by some as one of the only checks on power on the government. The Movement for Quality Government in Israel (MQG) said that the government's response 'clearly reveals the serious flaws' in its dismissal attempts. 'Instead of presenting a real legal justification for changing the mechanism, the government is trying to explain why it needs to dismiss the attorney general right now and why it needs to do so by changing the rules of the game. The response indicates that the government is aware of the weakness of the move from a legal perspective and is trying to justify a decision that was made in a clear conflict of interest,' it explained.
