The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear the case of Liam Morrison, a Massachusetts middle school student punished for wearing a shirt that said “There are only two genders.” The school deemed the message too controversial, even though it actively promotes LGBTQ+ causes—including a full “PRIDE Spirit Week”—and allows pro-LGBT messages on campus.

Morrison’s legal team, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), argued that the school engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination, violating the student’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case stemmed from two incidents: once when Morrison was sent home for wearing the shirt, and another when he wore a censored version that replaced “two” with “censored” to make a point—and was again forced to change.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented strongly, calling out the First Circuit Court of Appeals for distorting First Amendment precedent. Alito warned that “some lower courts are confused” and slammed the refusal to review the case as a dangerous move that leaves students without clarity on their constitutional rights.

Thomas added that the decision flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s landmark 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, which held that students don’t lose their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate unless the speech causes material disruption or invades the rights of others. Neither happened here.

Alito emphasized that the school’s own actions reveal the double standard. “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,” he wrote, warning that impressionable young students are especially vulnerable to one-sided indoctrination.

Despite the constitutional implications, the Court’s decision to stay out of the dispute leaves the lower court’s ruling in place. That ruling upheld Nichols Middle School’s decision to punish Morrison while maintaining its own one-sided expression on gender and identity topics.

ADF’s Senior Counsel David Cortman called the Court’s refusal “disappointing,” saying the case presented a vital opportunity to reaffirm that public schools cannot silence opinions they disagree with—especially when they are actively promoting the opposing viewpoint.

“This school openly celebrates Pride Week, encourages LGBTQ+ slogans and attire, and plasters gender-identity messaging all over the building—but a simple statement of scientific truth, ‘There are only two genders,’ gets a kid sent home,” Cortman said. “That’s not inclusivity. That’s ideological enforcement.”

Morrison’s shirt did not lead to classroom disruption or protests. In fact, his silent expression did exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect: peaceful disagreement. Yet the school treated it like a threat, while continuing to promote its own position on a deeply divisive cultural issue.

The decision not to hear the case sends a troubling signal to students across America: your speech is only protected if it aligns with what your school wants to hear.

The case, L.M. v. Middleborough, now stands as a cautionary tale for parents, students, and anyone concerned about the erosion of viewpoint diversity and free speech in public education. Justice Alito warned that “our Nation’s students, teachers, and administrators deserve clarity”—but instead, the Supreme Court allowed confusion, censorship, and bias to remain the law of the land.