A federal judge ruled that parents protesting a transgender athlete at a high school soccer game were not protected under the First Amendment, igniting fierce backlash and setting the stage for a legal appeal.
Key Facts:
- On Sept. 17, 2023, parents protested a girls’ soccer game in New Hampshire where a transgender player participated.
- Parents wore pink “XX” wristbands to symbolize biological females and were later banned from school events.
- They filed a lawsuit, claiming First Amendment violations, and were represented by the Institute for Free Speech.
- U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe ruled against the parents, calling the wristbands an “assault” on trans students.
- The parents and their attorney plan to continue the legal fight, calling the ruling unconstitutional.
The Rest of the Story:
Four parents were banned from their daughters’ school sporting events after staging a silent protest during a Bow High School soccer game.
The protest was aimed at a transgender athlete, Parker Tirrell, competing against biological girls.
The parents wore “XX” wristbands to quietly support their daughters and express concern over fairness in girls’ sports.
School officials saw the protest as targeting a specific student and responded by banning the parents.
After filing a lawsuit with legal support from the Institute for Free Speech, U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe rejected their claims.
He ruled that the protest occurred in a “limited public forum” and that schools could restrict speech they deemed harassing.
🚨 BREAKING: JUDGE RULES SCHOOL CAN BAN ‘XX’ PROTESTS — SILENCING PARENTS WHO DEFEND GIRLS’ SPORTS 🚨
YES — this is happening in America.
In Bow, New Hampshire, a judge has ruled that two fathers can be banned from silently protesting males in girls’ sports…
…because they… pic.twitter.com/9Djla7beHI
— Jim Ferguson (@JimFergusonUK) April 16, 2025
Commentary:
This ruling is a disaster for common sense and parental rights.
A biological male should never be allowed to compete in girls’ sports.
The simple act of protecting fairness for girls — biological girls — should not be treated as harassment.
The parents did nothing disruptive.
They wore silent symbols in peaceful protest.
That’s what the First Amendment is all about.
Judge McAuliffe’s reasoning turns the Constitution on its head.
If wearing a wristband gets you banned from your child’s games, something is broken.
Calling the “XX” symbol an assault is beyond absurd.
It’s a biological fact.
Are we now to believe that stating basic science is a form of violence?
If so, this country has lost its footing on truth.
The parents weren’t harassing anyone.
They were standing up for fairness and safety — especially when girls are forced to compete against stronger, faster biological males.
The school district, by banning parents, chose to embrace politics over protection.
And if they can do this without consequence, others will follow.
That’s why this case matters.
We hope the ruling is appealed immediately, and we hope the district loses every dollar of federal funding it receives until it respects basic rights.
Lastly, the judge’s comment about Pride flags being welcome while pro-girl symbols are banned exposes the double standard.
It’s ideological discrimination, and yes — it’s unconstitutional.
This judge should be impeached for abusing the very law he swore to uphold.
The Bottom Line:
A federal judge has sided with a school district that banned parents for silently protesting a transgender athlete.
The ruling sends a chilling message: dissent is no longer allowed if it offends the politically favored class.
The parents plan to fight back, and they should.
This isn’t just about sports — it’s about free speech, fairness, and the rights of parents to stand up for their kids.
This decision must not stand.
Read Next
– Kamala Harris Gets Brutally Mocked After Revealing Her New Career Plans
– New Report Shows Massive Difference Between Trump’s Cabinet Meetings and Biden’s
– Federal Judge Issues Decision in Major DOGE Case
– Florida Teacher Gets the Worst News Ever After Defying Parents Over Student’s Preferred Name