The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of a Massachusetts student disciplined for wearing a T-shirt stating a basic biological truth: “There are only two genders.”

The high court’s decision effectively allows the lower court ruling to stand, upholding the school district’s suppression of free expression. However, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, warning that the case represents a dangerous distortion of First Amendment protections.

“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, according to The Hill.

At the center of the case is L.M., a student from Middleborough, Massachusetts, whose guardians, Christopher and Susan Morrison, sued the Middleborough Public Schools in 2023. Their claim cited the landmark 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines, which famously affirmed that students do not “shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”

The controversy arose when the student was barred from wearing shirts stating “There are only two genders” and “There are censored genders”—statements that school officials claimed were disruptive. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a respected Christian conservative legal group, is representing the student.

The lawsuit charges that the school district’s actions “flout Tinker and turn the First Amendment on its head.” It continues:

“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.”

Despite these concerns, lower courts ruled in favor of the school district, claiming the student’s expression caused disruption—particularly for transgender students. In filings, school officials argued the shirts posed a “negative psychological impact” and cited mental health issues, including suicidal ideation among gender-nonconforming students at Nichols Middle School.

“School administrators attested to the young age of NMS students, the severe mental health struggles of transgender and gender-nonconforming students… and the then-interim principal’s experience working with gender-nonconforming students who had been bullied… and had harmed themselves or were hospitalized,” the district stated in court filings.

Critics argue that this reasoning allows schools to silence opposing views in the name of “emotional safety,” effectively weaponizing subjective feelings to suppress speech that doesn’t conform to progressive orthodoxy.

Though the petition was denied, the Supreme Court is still expected to weigh in on a pivotal case this term: whether Tennessee’s restriction on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors constitutes illegal sex discrimination. The ruling could have nationwide implications, particularly in GOP-led states, where laws protecting children from irreversible medical procedures are increasingly under fire.

Meanwhile, the court made waves last week by stepping in to temporarily shield the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from ongoing transparency demands tied to a federal lawsuit. The agency—created by President Donald Trump via Executive Order 14158 on January 20—was tasked with slashing bureaucratic waste and modernizing federal operations.

The DOGE agenda aims to “implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” However, lower courts had ordered the agency to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests amid a lawsuit.

In response, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay, halting the orders without explanation. According to The Epoch Times, critics questioned the delay in transparency.

“The orders issued by the federal district court in Washington ‘are hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court,’” Roberts wrote.

As the Court continues to shape major legal battles over gender ideology, government oversight, and constitutional liberties, conservatives remain watchful—and resolute—in the fight to preserve free speech and truth in America's public institutions.