The Supreme Court’s free speech gender case just got the silent treatment. School officials kicked Liam Morrison, a middle schooler from Massachusetts, out of class for wearing a shirt that said “There are only two genders.” The case reached the Supreme Court. And what did they do? Nothing. They took a pass. No ruling, no defense of student speech—just a quiet punt back to the states. Because apparently, saying boys and girls exist is now too hot for SCOTUS to handle.

Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same hands-off tactic the Court used in Dobbs—and rightly so—when they kicked the abortion issue back to the states, where it always should’ve been. That was a constitutional correction, not a surrender in the culture war. At least they took on this case and did their job.

Supreme Court Free Speech Gender Case

But with Liam Morrison? They didn’t even touch it. A middle school kid gets kicked out of class for wearing a shirt that says “There are only two genders,” and the Court just shrugs. No hearing. No ruling. Just a quiet “not our problem.”

And maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. We got a pretty big clue during Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings, when she said she couldn’t define what a woman is because she’s “not a biologist.” That wasn’t humility. That was the moment the Court bent to the narrative.

Meanwhile, schools are free to plaster classrooms with Pride flags, host “gender expression” days, and push every progressive talking point under the sun. But a T-shirt with a basic biological fact? That’s crossing the line.

By passing on a case that sought to protect student expression that questions gender ideology from censorship in public schools, SCOTUS may similarly send free speech, gender-critical, religious freedom, conservative and pro-life advocates scrambling at the state and school district levels to protect nondisruptive speech at odds with progressive shibboleths. – Just The News

Truth Gets You Sent Home. The Court Stays Silent.

Liam Morrison was 12 years old when he wore a shirt to middle school stating a basic biological fact. He wasn’t shouting or causing a scene. No disruptions. Just a sentence on cotton—and for that, he was told to change or leave.

When he came back with a shirt that read “There are only [censored] genders,” it happened again. The school said it was “disruptive.” The courts said that was fine. And now, by refusing to take the case, the Supreme Court has left that precedent standing.

So here we are: “There are only two genders” is now a dangerous idea in an American school. Not pornography. Not political sloganeering. Just…reality.

I’m disappointed to learn that the Supreme Court has declined to hear Liam Morrison’s case.

Liam’s story is clear evidence that it’s too early to declare victory in the fight against gender ideology. As long as there are schools in America where students are encouraged to… pic.twitter.com/qozVBsgWMt

— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 27, 2025

Back to the States—Because That’s Gone So Well

With Dobbs, the pro-life movement quickly learned that sending issues back to the states isn’t a guaranteed win. In fact, it’s often the beginning of a new war—one they weren’t ready for. Abortion access expanded in places where it shouldn’t have — not because red states caved, but because ballot initiatives and state courts steamrolled the legislatures. Turns out, when the culture war hits the voting booth, the messaging battle matters more than party control. Now we’re seeing the same pattern with gender ideology and free speech.

Except this time, it’s not just about policies. It’s about words. Beliefs. It’s about who gets to speak, and who’s told to shut up.

Jennifer Sey vs. Colorado: The Gag Order on Reality

That brings us to Colorado, where Jennifer Sey, founder of XX-XY Athletics, has filed a lawsuit against the state. Why? Because Colorado just passed HB25-1312, a law that essentially forces businesses to parrot the state’s gender ideology or face penalties.

Let me retype that – a law that essentially forces businesses to parrot the state’s gender ideology or face penalties. 

Sey’s brand is unapologetically pro-woman, pro-truth, and rooted in biological reality. But under this new law, her ads could be deemed “discriminatory” simply for saying that men don’t belong in women’s sports. The state is trying to gag her brand into compliance by twisting the definition of “public accommodation.”

This isn’t about kindness. It’s about control. And it’s being done in the most insidious way possible: through legislation and litigation, cloaked in moral language, enforced by courts.

The lawsuit takes aim at the state for passing a law called HB25-1312 and amending the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which defines “gender expression” to include “chosen name” and “how an individual chooses to be addressed.” The laws state Coloradans have a right to access “public accommodations and advertising” that are free of discrimination on that basis.

The company’s lawsuit claims that the state’s new legislation would make it illegal for the brand to carry out certain viral marketing campaign techniques it has used since launching last year.

“XX-XY Athletics, in their advertising, customer interactions, and elsewhere, to refer to transgender-identifying individuals with their given names or with biologically accurate language. XX-XY Athletics can no longer speak the truth in pursuit of its mission. XX-XY Athletics can no longer call men, men,” the lawsuit states.

“Even worse, the Act coerces the company to speak against its principles and alter the meaning of its core message. If XX-XY Athletics refuses, the company faces cease-and-desist orders, expensive investigations, hearings, and civil and criminal penalties.” – New York Post

Oh, and did I mention that her company is already banned from advertising on TikTok?

The Language War: How the Left Rewrites Culture

Let’s call this what it is. The progressive Left is using the court system—and their control of language—as a battering ram against the Christian moral foundation of American life.

They’re not just changing rules. They’re changing definitions. What used to be called truth is now labeled hate. What used to be biology is now bigotry. “Two genders” becomes “disruptive speech.” “Women’s sports” becomes “open to all identities.” And if you disagree? You get kicked out, silenced, shamed, and bullied.

This is about more than Liam’s shirt or Jennifer’s athletic brand. This is about replacing the nuclear family with the State. Replacing God with government. Replacing truth with ideology. And it’s happening one court ruling, one “inclusive” law, one censored word at a time.

The Stakes Are Bigger Than T-Shirts

Don’t let the simplicity of these cases fool you. A shirt on a kid. A slogan on an ad. That’s where it starts. But the real endgame is much deeper—and much darker.

They want to dismantle traditional family roles. Discredit biblical values. Redefine identity through a Marxist lens. All in the name of “equity.” And because they know they can’t win in a national referendum, they’re using the back door: courts, agencies, and bureaucrats.

They’re changing America—not with riots, but with rulings.

Feature Image: Created in Canva Pro