Supreme Court declines to hear student's bid to wear ‘two genders' shirt to school
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's leading conservatives, indicated they would've reviewed the student's case, saying the lower courts were distorting the First Amendment.
'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,' wrote Alito, joined by Thomas.
Lower courts held that the school's ban doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's famous 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, that permitted students to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War, ruling they don't 'shed their constitutional rights' when they enter 'the schoolhouse gate.'
Christopher and Susan Morrison, the guardians of student L.M., who is not named in court filings because he is a minor, latched onto the precedent as they sued the Middleborough, Mass., school district in 2023 for declining to let the student wear the shirt, along with a second one that read, 'there are censored genders.'
'It gives schools a blank check to suppress unpopular political or religious views, allows censorship based on 'negative psychological impact' or ideological offense, rejects a public school's duty to inculcate tolerance, and lowers free-speech protection for expression that schools say implicates 'characteristics of personal identity' in an 'assertedly demeaning' way,' the lawsuit states.
'This flouts Tinker and turns the First Amendment on its head.'
The student is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian conservative legal powerhouse that frequently wins cases implicating gender and sexuality to the Supreme Court.
The school district's attorneys said the group 'attempts to rewrite the facts' and doesn't grapple with affidavits submitted by school administrators at Nichols Middle School (NMS) that provide 'crucial context' justifying how the shirts interfere with other students' ability to concentrate.
'School administrators attested to the young age of NMS students, the severe mental health struggles of transgender and gender-nonconforming students (including suicidal ideation), and the then-interim principal's experience working with gender-nonconforming students who had been bullied in other districts and had harmed themselves or were hospitalized due to contemplated, or attempted, suicide,' the district wrote in court filings.
Though the court turned away the petition, the justices have already agreed to hear a major case this term implicating transgender protections.
The high court is weighing whether Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors amounts to unconstitutional sex discrimination, a ruling that stands to impact similar laws passed in roughly half the country by Republican-led state legislatures. A decision is expected by early summer.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
6 minutes ago
- CNN
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.' It was in effect until 1973, when the US Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the US Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide – which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent – but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.
CBS News
8 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump asks Supreme Court to let him fire members of Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington — President Trump's administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to allow him to fire three members of the independent Consumer Product Safety Commission. The request to the high court by Solicitor General D. John Sauer arose from a federal judge's decision earlier this month that found Mr. Trump's removal of the three commissioners — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — was unlawful and blocked their terminations. The officials had been named to the five-member Consumer Product Safety Commission by former President Joe Biden for seven-year terms. Boyle's term was set to end in October, Hoehn-Saric's time on the panel was due to end in October 2027 and Trumka's in October 2028. The commission sets consumer product safety standards, can order product recalls and bring civil suits against companies. The three members were told in May that their positions were terminated, effective immediately. Under federal law, a president cannot remove a commissioner at-will, but only for neglect of duty or malfeasance. Removal restrictions like those governing the Consumer Product Safety Commission have been put in place by Congress to insulate independent agencies from politics. But Mr. Trump has sought to test his removal powers through a series of firings targeting members of those entities. Following their firings, the commissioners sued and asked a federal judge in Maryland, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission is headquartered, to restore them to their positions. They succeeded in their bid earlier this month, when U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox allowed the three commissioners to resume their roles. "Depriving this five-member commission of three of its sitting members threatens severe impairment of its ability to fulfill its statutory mandates and advance the public's interest in safe consumer products," Maddox wrote in his decision. "This hardship and threat to public safety significantly outweighs any hardship defendants might suffer from plaintiffs' participation on the CPSC." A unanimous panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit declined to block the district court's decision and allow Mr. Trump to fire the commissioners. The commissioners, Judge James Wynn wrote in a brief opinion, "were appointed to serve fixed terms with statutory protections designed to preserve the commission's independence and partisan balance. Permitting their unlawful removal would thwart that purpose and deprive the public of the commission's full expertise and oversight. And because the attempted removals were unlawful, the Plaintiff-Commissioners never ceased to lawfully occupy their offices." Sauer's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court is the third involving the president's power to remove executive officers, which the administration has argued is generally unrestricted. The justices in May cleared the way for Mr. Trump to remove without cause two members of two federal independent labor boards while legal fights over their terminations move forward. Over the dissent of the three liberal justices, the high court said in its unsigned decision that it "reflects our judgment that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty." Sauer said that May decision from the high court regarding the earlier removals should have foreclosed the reinstatement of the Consumer Product Safety Commission members. The district court's order, he wrote, effectively transfers control of the panel from Mr. Trump to three members who were appointed by his predecessor. "That plain-as-day affront to the President's fundamental Article II powers warrants intervention now," the solicitor general wrote. Sauer asked the high court to act immediately and issue a brief administrative stay that would allow it more time to consider his request for emergency relief. Lawyers for the commissioners opposed that request for swift action, noting that they have been serving in their roles in the nearly three weeks since the district judge ruled in their favor. The Trump administration, the lawyers said, did not identify any harm that would stem from the commissioner's continued service during the time it will take for the Supreme Court to rule.
CBS News
8 minutes ago
- CBS News
State Rep. Hoan Huynh running to succeed Jan Schakowsky in Congress for Illinois' 9th District
Current Illinois State Rep. Hoan Huynh has entered the Democratic field to succeed Jan Schakowsky in the U.S. Congress. Schakowsky, who has represented Illinois' 9th District since 1998, is retiring in 2026 after her current term in the House of Representatives ends. Huynh is currently the Illinois General Assembly as the representative for the state's 13th district, which covers parts of Uptown, Andersonville and Lincoln Square. He filed paperwork to run for Congress late Tuesday night. He released a campaign video Wednesday morning, becoming the eleventh candidate to enter the race for the Democratic nomination. He joins other popular elected officials in the area, including Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and State Senator Laura Fine. The 9th District sweeps along the lakefront from Uptown through Evanston and Skokie before jogging west to Morton Grove and all the way out to Algonquin. The people who have filed paperwork to run for the Democratic nomination are: David Abrevaya, Kat Abughazaleh, Bushra Amiwala, Danie Biss, Laura Fine, Miracle Jenkins, Bethany Johnson, Bruce Leon, Laura Million, Howard Rosenblum and Rocio Cleveland. Mark Su has filed to run as a Republican. According to the Illinois State Board of Elections, the general primary will e held on March 17, 2026.
