The Supreme Court has decided not to hear cases that might clarify students’ rights to express views that go against the prevalent acceptance of gender ideology.
It’s clear that the Supreme Court takes on only a small fraction of appeal cases, needing to navigate a wide range of constitutional challenges. Yet, the pressing matters that require attention seem to have been overlooked, leaning toward acceptance without resolution.
Is the conversation about “two genders” really too heated for a proper discussion? The Court’s refusal to address gender-related cases concerning school bathrooms, locker rooms, and women’s sports has sparked frustration since 2019. An ongoing question remains: does Title IX protect students based on their biological sex or gender identity?
By avoiding decisions on school sports and space disputes, the Court sidesteps important issues around student rights and the obligations of schools to protect those rights. Related cases, like those involving students penalized for wearing expressive T-shirts, also reflect this trend. There have been instances where female athletes were told to remove shirts proclaiming “only girls sports for girls,” and recently the Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a shirt stating “there are only two genders.”
On May 27, the Court dismissed a petition in the case of Lm et al. v. Middle Borrow, although not all justices agreed with this decision. Justice Samuel Alito, supported by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a 14-page dissent.
Alito noted, “The issue at hand is significant for young people across our nation. The question of whether public schools can suppress student speech, whether out of a perceived school climate concern or students feeling attacked, is vital.” He criticized the inconsistent standards applied by lower courts.
In this situation, while the middle school encouraged student expression for the belief in multiple genders, a seventh-grader wearing a “There are only two genders” T-shirt faced punishment. When he attempted to mask the phrase “only two” and protested against the censorship, he was further penalized with a ban on the shirt.
Alito also pointed out that lower courts have created new standards for judging perspective discrimination, warning that there’s an urgent need for clarity in interpretation regarding precedents set by the Des Moines Independent Community School District.
This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has steered clear of debates over gender ideology versus biological perspectives in educational settings.
Since 2019, they have denied three cases related to student rights for sex-specific school facilities from different circuit courts. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to address this silence two years ago. There are tangible implications for negligence, with cases like middle school students in Illinois having to change in locker rooms with a transgender-identifying male, and a case from Loudoun County, Virginia, where a male student faced repercussions for opposing the presence of transgender students in girls’ bathrooms.
At the same time, the Supreme Court has been criticized for delaying action on three states seeking to reinstate laws that protect women’s sports based on biological sex. This inaction is adversely affecting female student athletes.
In 2021, West Virginia enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act but has encountered ongoing legal challenges. This situation has resulted in a transgender-identifying male winning multiple middle school awards in women’s shot-put, while he competes as a freshman at the West Virginia Championship.
Governor Patrick Morrisey condemned these violations of state law, stating, “It’s unjust and unfair for a boy to compete in women’s sports at the West Virginia high school state track competition. I urge the administration to maintain a fair scoring system so we can recognize genuine winners once we prevail in court.”
As more cases arise, one has to wonder why the Supreme Court continues to sidestep these issues. The need for resolution is evident.
Alito, with two decades on the High Court, has expressed considerable dissatisfaction over recent denials regarding the “two gender” T-shirts. There’s also an argument stemming from the First Circuit, suggesting that a general ban on perspective-based censorship doesn’t extend to public schools, which could effectively challenge LM’s case in court.
Underlying issues related to all gender-in-school cases remain unresolved. Alito’s dissent highlights a broader confusion among lower courts about balancing student rights with school responsibilities. Both students and educators deserve clarity on this critical matter.
Students wear T-shirts. Female athletes protest. Poll results suggest that the majority of the American populace supports a return to biological truths in sports, as well as in women’s spaces and speech.
Action is indeed necessary. Now feels like an opportune time for the courts to step in and address these matters with due respect.
