On May 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the First Circuit’s decision in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, upholding the lower court’s decision in favor of the school district, permitting the school’s dress code policy which prohibits clothing displaying hate speech. The First Circuit held that the school district acted within its authority under the First Amendment when it prevented a middle school student from wearing a t-shirt with a message stating, “there are only two genders.” The Court reasoned that the message could be reasonably interpreted as demeaning to transgender and gender nonconforming students, and could cause material disruptions to the school environment.
Key Facts
The Plaintiff in the case was L.M., a 12-year old, seventh grade student, who wore a t-shirt displaying the message, “there are only two genders” to school. His school had a dress code policy that prohibited clothing that stated, implied, or depicted hate speech or imagery that targets groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other classification. The policy further stated that any other apparel that the administration determined to be unacceptable to the school’s community standards will not be allowed. After students and school staff complained about the shirt, L.M. was called to the office and asked to remove the shirt. When he refused, L.M.’s father picked him up from school, rather than requiring him to remove the shirt. L.M. was not disciplined during this interaction.
After his removal, L.M. provided media interviews that resulted in increased community attention. Two individuals appeared outside of the school, holding signs protesting the District’s actions. The following day, counter-protesters appeared. Community members complained to the District about both groups of individuals. The school administrators also received numerous messages, calls, and emails that were threatening in nature.
The District was later contacted by the student’s attorney who alleged the District’s policy violated the First Amendment and informed the District that L.M. would wear the shirt again the following week. When L.M. wore the shirt the second time, he placed a piece of tape with the word “censored” placed over the words “only two.” He was called to the office and asked to remove the shirt. He complied with the request and returned to class.
L.M.’s family subsequently filed a lawsuit against the school district alleging a violation of L. M.’s First Amendment rights, requesting an injunction and temporary restraining order prohibiting the District from stopping L. M. from wearing the shirt, and actual and nominal damages.
Legal Analysis
The district court held for the school, finding that they did not violate the First Amendment. The First Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. They reasoned that case law permitted school officials to bar passive, silently expressed messages that did not target a specific student when:
(1) the expression is reasonably interpreted to demean the characteristics of personal identity, given the common understanding that such characteristics are “unalterable or otherwise deeply rooted” and demeaning them “strikes a person at the core of his being”, and
(2) the demeaning message is reasonably forecasted to “poison the educational atmosphere” due to its serious negative psychological impact on students with the demeaned characteristics, and thereby lead to “symptoms of a sick school – symptoms therefore of substantial disruption.”
The Court further reasoned that, although the standard for showing material disruption is demanding, the school is not required to be certain of their forecasted disruption.
The Court explained that the shirt, in the context of a middle school where students range from ten to fourteen years old, would be perceived to demean the identity of transgender and gender nonconforming people. The Court stated that gender was a major component of a person’s identity, and such comments can strike a person to the core of their being. They also found that the taped shirt was likely to evoke a similar response as the untaped shirt, because the attention generated by the media interviews and protests would allow other students to understand the meaning of the message on the taped shirt.
The Court said that the District was not acting on abstract concerns regarding the potential impact of the t-shirt; the message demeaned the identities of some of the students at the middle school. Because the District had received reports of bullying, particularly of the LGBTQ+ community, and some LGBTQ+ students reported suicidal ideation, the Court opined that it was reasonable to forecast that the message denied the existence of transgender and gender non-conforming students and would have a serious negative impact on those students’ ability to concentrate on their work.
The Court further stated that because the message was reasonably understood to be demeaning, negative interactions between students could lead to a deterioration in the school’s ability to educate the students. Because the record supports a reasonable assessment that the message would negatively affect the psychology of young students with the demeaned gender identities that it would “poison the educational atmosphere.”
Implications for Schools and Educational Institutions
- Ohio Impact: Although the First Circuit’s decision does not create binding law in Ohio, the Supreme Court’s decision to decline to hear the case suggests that the First Circuit’s reasoning may be applicable in Ohio courts. The reasoning in this case builds upon case law in the Sixth Circuit, which held that a school district’s ban on displays of the confederate flag would disrupt the educational process, given the history of racial tension in the schools.
- Policy Implications: School dress code policies that prohibit clothing displaying hate speech may be permissible under First Amendment case law, but each instance requires a fact specific analysis.
- Application to other Protected Groups: Although this case dealt with gender identity, the reasoning is applicable to other protected classes, such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or any other classification.
For Further Information: If you have any questions regarding this case or the impact on your school district, please do not hesitate to reach out to Dr. Paula E. Chan or any of the attorneys in Weston Hurd’s Education Law Group to discuss further.
###
About the Author
Dr. Paula E. Chan focuses her practice on education law, advising clients on issues related to special education, labor and employment, employment discrimination, student discipline, and disability accommodations. She has considerable experience planning and implementing civil rights investigations enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI, and Title IX. Dr. Chan can be contacted via email at pchan@westonhurd.com or by phone at 216-687-3326.
