New Hampshire federal judge rules against parents who wore “XX” wristbands to protest a transgender athlete, finding schools can limit adult speech on campus when it risks harming students.
At a Glance
- Federal Judge Steven McAuliffe denied parents’ request to wear pink “XX” wristbands at school sports events while their lawsuit continues
- The parents received trespass notices after wearing the wristbands at a girls’ soccer game that included a transgender athlete
- The judge ruled that school officials reasonably acted to prevent potential harassment, despite parents claiming no intent to harass
- The case tests boundaries between adult free speech rights and schools’ responsibility to protect students from harassment
- This ruling comes amid separate litigation challenging New Hampshire’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which restricts transgender athlete participation
Parents’ Protest and Legal Challenge
Two New Hampshire fathers, Kyle Fellers and Anthony Foote, found themselves barred from school grounds after wearing pink wristbands marked “XX” to a girls’ soccer game featuring a transgender athlete. The parents subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the ban, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated when the Bow and Dunbarton School Districts Superintendent issued trespass notices against them following their protest at the sporting event.
The controversy unfolded against the backdrop of mounting tensions over transgender athlete participation in school sports. Prior to the game where the wristbands were worn, school officials had received reports of plans to heckle the transgender player, prompting the district to take preventive action. Superintendent Marcy Kelley characterized the situation as deliberate and coordinated, stating, “This was organized and targeted.”
Judge’s Ruling on Free Speech Limitations
U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe denied the parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction that would have allowed them to continue wearing the wristbands at future games while their lawsuit proceeded. In his ruling, McAuliffe emphasized that the broader context of the protest was crucial to understanding why school officials acted as they did, regardless of the parents’ stated intentions.
“While plaintiffs may very well have never intended to communicate a demeaning or harassing message directed at Parker Tirrell or any other transgender students, the symbols and posters they displayed were fully capable of conveying such a message. And, that broader messaging is what the school authorities reasonably understood and appropriately tried to prevent,” wrote Judge McAuliffe in his ruling.
Legal Arguments from Both Sides
The school district defended its actions as necessary to protect students from potential harassment. Superintendent Kelley explained the preemptive approach, saying, “When we suspect there’s some sort of threat, we don’t wait for it to happen.” The district argued that ensuring student safety sometimes requires limiting adult expression on school grounds, particularly when that expression could be interpreted as targeting specific students.
Attorney Del Kolde, representing the parents, strongly disagreed with the ruling, arguing: “This was adult speech in a limited public forum, which enjoys greater First Amendment protection than student speech in the classroom. Bow School District officials were obviously discriminating based on viewpoint because they perceived the XX wristbands to be ‘trans-exclusionary’.”
Broader Context of Transgender Athletes in New Hampshire
This case is one of two significant legal challenges regarding transgender athletes currently proceeding through New Hampshire courts. The second involves two transgender teen girls challenging the state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bans transgender athletes from participating in teams that align with their gender identity. Governor Chris Sununu, who signed the law, has defended it as legislation that “ensures fairness and safety in women’s sports by maintaining integrity and competitive balance in athletic competitions.”
A federal judge previously granted a preliminary order allowing the two teens to try out for girls’ sports teams, though the order currently applies only to them. Lawyers for the teens are pushing for a trial before the next school year begins, while the state has requested additional time to prepare its case. The law requires teams to be designated as girls, boys, or coed, with eligibility determined by birth certificates or other evidence.
Implications of the Ruling
Judge McAuliffe’s decision represents a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over free speech rights in school settings and transgender participation in sports. While the ruling is preliminary and a final decision remains pending, it signals that courts may give substantial deference to school officials’ judgments about what constitutes potential harassment of students, even when the speech comes from adults rather than fellow students.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between protecting free expression and preventing harm to students, particularly those from vulnerable groups. It also comes at a time when President Donald Trump has signed an Executive Order aimed at banning transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports, further elevating the national significance of these New Hampshire legal battles.
