SCOTUS won’t consider a teen’s failed attempts to wear an anti-transgender T-shirt to school

Liam Morrison wearing the second of his banned T-shirts in the spring of 2023. Handout photo via Nemasket Week.

Last October, I wrote that I would be surprised if the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a middle school student’s appeal of a ruling that local officials had a right to ban him from wearing an anti-transgender T-shirt. But the way this court is heading, I have to say that maybe I am a little surprised.

The court declined to hear the case, reports Lawrence Hurley for NBC News. That should be the end of the line for Liam Morrison, who in the spring of 2023 — when he was a seventh-grader — was sent home from school by authorities in Middleborough, Massachusetts, for wearing a T-shirt that said “There Are Only Two Genders” and then again for wearing a shirt that said “There Are Only (Censored) Genders.”

Here is the post I wrote last October, when he and his high-profile supporters appealed to the court. It’s got all the background that you need. Meanwhile, let me explain how close a call this is.

About a month ago, the court ruled against an online Catholic school in Missouri that sought to become the country’s first religious charter school — that is, a public school. As Amy Howe reported for SCOTUSblog, the vote was 4-4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself. If Barrett had taken part and voted with the majority, the Catholic school would have won.

Likewise, Morrison’s case has been cloaked in the garb of religious freedom, and he was being represented by a Christian-right law firm. It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case, a process known as granting a writ of certiorari, or “granting cert.”

Thus all it would have taken to get Morrison’s case before the court was the support of the same four justices who ruled in favor of the Catholic school in the Missouri case. As for whether Morrison could have won, Barrett herself has some pretty strong ties to the religious right, though she’s also emerged as something of an independent thinker.

What that suggests is that Morrison’s case was exceptionally weak, and the Supreme Court has no interest in overturning precedents leaving disciplinary decisions in the hands of public school authorities.

More: I initially failed to note that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have heard the case. Because of course they would.

The Supreme Court’s vote to uphold the Texas abortion law is an affront to democracy

Photo (cc) 2006 by OZinOH

In analyzing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 vote not to overturn Texas’ drastic new abortion restrictions, a number of commentators have focused on the role played by the three justices nominated by Donald Trump — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

All three, needless to say, are wildly controversial. Gorsuch was chosen after then-Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell refused even to take up Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, who’s now attorney general. Kavanaugh was confirmed despite serious and credible allegations of sexual assault. Barrett was rushed through before the 2020 election following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

But there is a more systemic problem, and that’s the failure of democracy that made last’s week’s decision possible. Trump, as we all know, lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016 by about 3 million votes. He won only because the Electoral College, a relic of slavery, provides small rural states with disproportionate power. Yet he got to appoint one-third of the current court.

Moreover, all three of Trump’s justices were confirmed by a Senate controlled by the Republicans even though they represented fewer people than the Democrats. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were confirmed during the first two years of Trump’s term, when the Democratic senators represented 56% of the population nationwide compared to the Republican share of 44%. That margin had narrowed slightly by the time Barrett was confirmed, but 53% of the population was still represented by Democratic senators compared to 47% by Republicans. (See my analysis.)

The other two justices who voted to uphold the Texas law were Clarence Thomas, appointed by George H.W. Bush, who was a majority president, and Samuel Alito, appointed by George W. Bush during his second term, which he won by a majority after losing the popular vote the first time around. But that’s just two votes. If Obama and Clinton had named three justices instead of Trump, it’s easy to imagine that the Texas law would have been suspended by a 7-2 vote. It’s just as easy to imagine that the Texas legislature wouldn’t have passed such a perverse and draconian law in the first place.

This is not democracy. Nor is it republicanism, since a properly designed republic is supposed to represent a majority of the electorate by proxy. It’s fair to ask how long this can go on before the majority stands up and demands an end to government by the minority.