As a child, I vividly remember hearing the fable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” My favorite thing about the story was that it was the child who spoke up. The child, watching the emperor parade through the town, innocently exclaims that the emperor is naked, breaking the collective silence of the crowd who had been pretending to admire the nonexistent garments due to fear of appearing foolish.
This parable has been passed down through the ages to prepare all of us for the day that we might also be urged by the “townsfolk” to believe in something that we know to be false. That time is now when it comes to transgender boys competing in girls’ sports. But it gets worse.
Now, according to the Bow School Board and the Federal District Court for the State of New Hampshire, we are told we cannot even speak up and complain about it. It’s as if the emperor’s judges silenced the little boy.
I also know from my own experience what this feels like. In 2022, I was forced to sit in silence at the Ivy League Championships at Harvard while Liam Thomas swam against the Dartmouth Women’s Swim Team.
Well, I have had enough. So today, I am proud to share the news that I, along with my friend Bobby Charles (Republican gubernatorial candidate in Maine) and our lawyer and constitutional law expert Ted Cooperstein, have submitted an amicus brief to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Bow parents.
For those unfamiliar with the case, in September 2024, a group of parents in Bow, New Hampshire, attended a high school girls’ soccer game wearing pink wristbands marked with “XX,” a symbol representing the female chromosome.
Their silent protest was a response to a transgender athlete, identified as a biological male, playing on the opposing girls’ team. The Bow School District issued trespass orders against parents Kyle Fellers, Anthony and Nicole Foote, and Eldon Rash, barring them from school grounds and events. While this silent protest has sparked a heated debate about fairness in sports and the rights of transgender athletes, what is really at stake here in New Hampshire is the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceful protest.
As for the amicus brief, I like to think of it as a way for any individual that might be affected by a particular pending case, to speak up and remind the court that not only are we watching, but that we believe there are some relevant cases that you might consider when you make your ruling.
As it relates to this case, and in layman’s terms, our brief points out the following:
1) In May 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case from Middleborough, Mass., of the teen who was sent home for wearing a shirt saying, “there are only two genders.” However, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented and noted that it was time for cases like that to be heard. We take this as a good sign of imminent change.
2) We believe that the school engaged in clear-cut viewpoint discrimination, and that the courts have to date permitted it. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and we have cited several similar cases that support our nation’s principles that this should not be allowed. The “rule that viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are almost never allowed is not a new principle proclaimed only in ‘recent decisions.’” Rather, “viewpoint neutrality has long been seen as going to ‘the very heart of the First Amendment.’”
3) Adult citizens’ rights in public forums cannot be reduced to student speech standards. “That is because free speech is the rule, not the exception.” But the Bow School Board and the District Court conflated student speech cases with adult speech rights.
4) Silencing these parents amounts to the “Heckler’s Veto.” This concept suggests that by screaming “You’re offending me!” one might make everyone conform to their limited and partisan viewpoint. Furthermore, freedom of expression, especially the expression of political views, ranks near the top of the hierarchy of constitutional rights.
5) Parents have fundamental rights to advocate for their children’s safety and fairness in sports. Yet the lower courts are divided on how to apply a “material disruption standard in a context like this one, and the decision of the court underscores the pressing need for correction.” The decision effectively silences one viewpoint from an important public policy debate. This lopsided result perverts the public square from a deliberative forum seeking truth to an oppressive show trial. The impact of these restrictions on political candidates and public discourse is a slippery slope to broader censorship. The First Amendment, if it means anything, is designed to prevent and deter these harms.
Like many in New Hampshire, I believe in a compassionate and inclusive society that embraces all members of our society. Nevertheless, I also look forward to the Supreme Court determining “what is a woman” one of these days, so we can put an end to this debate and protect girls’ and safety in women’s sports. In the meantime, it is critical that our First Amendment rights not be curtailed by people like the Bow School Board and the Federal Court in New Hampshire. Furthermore, with roughly 80 percent of the American public on our side, I look forward to a return to common sense, as the emperor really has no clothes when it comes to this issue… it’s naked and wrong.
