A federal judge in New Hampshire has ruled against a group of parents seeking to protest the participation of a transgender athlete in high school girls’ sports by wearing wristbands referencing biological sex chromosomes. The decision has sparked backlash from free speech advocates who say the ruling sets a dangerous precedent for viewpoint discrimination in public spaces.

The controversy began in September when four parents — Anthony and Nicole Foote, Kyle Fellers, and Eldon Rash — attended a high school soccer game wearing pink “XX” wristbands, referencing the female sex chromosome. Their protest came in response to the participation of Parker Tirrell, a 16-year-old biological male who identifies as female, on a girls’ soccer team.

The protest prompted school officials from the Bow and Dunbarton School Districts to issue notices of trespass to the parents, effectively banning them from school grounds. In response, the parents filed a lawsuit, alleging that their First Amendment rights had been violated. Though the no-trespass orders have since expired, the parents continued to press the court for the right to wear the wristbands and carry signs at future games while their case proceeds.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe denied their request for a preliminary injunction, siding with the school district. The judge argued that the context in which the wristbands were worn justified the school’s actions, even if the parents themselves did not intend to harass or demean.

“While plaintiffs may very well have never intended to communicate a demeaning or harassing message directed at Parker Tirrell or any other transgender students, the symbols and posters they displayed were fully capable of conveying such a message,” McAuliffe wrote.

He further stated that in the setting of a school-sponsored athletic event, the district had a duty to prevent expression that could be seen as harmful to student participants. “The broader and more demeaning/harassing message the School District understood plaintiffs’ ‘XX’ symbols to convey was, in context, entirely reasonable,” he concluded.

Del Kolde, senior attorney at the Institute for Free Speech and legal counsel for the parents, strongly disagreed with the ruling, calling it a violation of fundamental First Amendment rights.

“This was adult speech in a limited public forum, which enjoys greater First Amendment protection than student speech in the classroom,” Kolde said. “Bow School District officials were obviously discriminating based on viewpoint because they perceived the XX wristbands to be ‘trans-exclusionary.’”

Kolde also noted that the parents had not directed any language at specific individuals nor engaged in disruptive conduct, underscoring that their protest was peaceful and symbolic.

The judge’s ruling referenced other pre-game concerns as justification, including a report that some parents had discussed dressing in women’s clothing to heckle the transgender athlete. Though those alleged plans never materialized, Superintendent Marcy Kelley said school officials acted preemptively to avoid any potential harassment or escalation.

“When we suspect there’s some sort of threat… we don’t wait for it to happen,” Kelley said at a previous hearing.

The court has yet to issue a final ruling on the parents’ right to wear the pink wristbands at future school events, but Monday’s decision suggests the judge is leaning toward upholding the school’s restrictions.

The legal battle comes as the Trump administration has taken a hard stance on the issue of transgender participation in women’s sports. In February, President Trump signed the “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order, which seeks to bar biological males from competing in female athletic competitions at federally funded institutions.

The broader cultural and political divide over transgender issues continues to intensify. Supporters of the Trump administration’s position argue that allowing male athletes to compete in women’s divisions undermines fairness and safety in sports. Critics, meanwhile, accuse the administration of discrimination and promoting harmful rhetoric.

This New Hampshire case now joins a growing list of legal battles where free speech, parental rights, and gender identity are colliding in America’s public schools. As the final ruling looms, the outcome could set a significant precedent for how far schools can go in limiting speech based on perceived offense or “harassing” symbolism — even when no disruption occurs.

For now, the parents plan to appeal. “We won’t back down,” said one of the plaintiffs outside the courthouse. “This is about fairness in sports and fairness in speech — we’re fighting for both.”