A federal judge in New Hampshire has ruled against two fathers who sought to wear pink wristbands marked with “XX” to protest the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ sports, a decision that has ignited a national debate over the boundaries of free speech and the rights of transgender students.
The Incident
The controversy began last September at a high school soccer match between Bow High School and Plymouth Regional High School, where 16-year-old transgender athlete Parker Tirrell played for the visiting team. During the game, parents Anthony Foote and Kyle Fellers, along with others, wore pink wristbands emblazoned with “XX”—a reference to the female sex chromosomes—to silently protest the inclusion of transgender girls in girls’ sports. The demonstration prompted Bow and Dunbarton School District officials to issue trespass notices against several parents, barring them from school grounds.
Legal Challenge and Ruling
Foote and Fellers, represented by attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech, filed a lawsuit claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated. They requested a court order allowing them to wear the wristbands and display protest signs at school events while the case proceeded.
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe denied their request for a preliminary injunction. In his ruling, McAuliffe acknowledged that the parents may not have intended to harass or target any individual student, but emphasized that the context and potential impact of their protest could not be ignored. He wrote that “adults attending a high school athletic event do not enjoy a First Amendment protected right to convey messages that demean, harass or harm students,” and that the “XX” symbols, while plausibly inoffensive in isolation, were “fully capable of conveying such a message” in the context of the event.
The judge further stated that the school district’s interpretation of the wristbands as demeaning or harassing was “entirely reasonable,” and that the district acted within its rights to restrict such expression in order to protect students and maintain a safe educational environment. However, the order clarified that the parents remain free to display their symbols and signage in any public forum outside of school-sponsored activities.
Free Speech Debate
The decision has sparked intense debate among legal scholars, advocacy groups, and the public. Critics argue that the ruling sets a troubling precedent for free speech, particularly in limited public forums like school events. Del Kolde, a senior attorney for the parents, called the decision “obviously discriminatory,” contending that the school district’s actions were based on the perceived message of the wristbands rather than any actual disruption or harassment.
Supporters of the ruling, including school officials, maintain that the primary responsibility is to protect students from potential harm and to foster an inclusive environment. They point to prior discussions among parents about more vocal protests, including wearing dresses and heckling, as evidence of a broader intent to target the transgender athlete.
Broader Context
The case comes amid a wave of legislative and legal battles over transgender participation in school sports across the United States. New Hampshire recently enacted a law requiring school sports teams to be designated by biological sex, though that law is currently being challenged in federal court. The ongoing dispute highlights the complex and often contentious intersection of free speech rights, anti-discrimination protections, and the evolving landscape of gender identity in American schools.
What’s Next
The parents’ legal team has indicated they may appeal the decision, arguing that the restriction on their symbolic protest is an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment rights. Legal experts note that the case could set an important precedent as courts continue to grapple with how to balance freedom of expression with the rights and well-being of transgender students in educational settings.
As the case moves forward, it remains a focal point for national discussions on the limits of protest, the meaning of inclusion, and the role of schools in mediating these deeply divisive issues.