The events giving rise to the case occurred in the wake of Tirrell v. Edelblut, a separate federal case in which the Court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of New Hampshire’s House Bill 1205, which prohibited transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams. The Court in Tirrell ruled in favor of two transgender students, including P.T., who was allowed to compete on her school’s girls’ soccer team.
In September 2024, P.T.’s team, Plymouth Regional High School, was scheduled to play against Bow High School (BHS). In the days leading up to the match, controversy emerged among some BHS parents opposed to P.T.’s participation. Discussions of protests circulated, including plans to wear dresses, create anti-trans gear, and bring signs to the game. Plaintiffs in the present case—Kyle Fellers, Andy Foote, Nicole Foote, and Eldon Rash—were among those planning to express their opposition.
Andy Foote, father of a BHS player, posted on social media describing P.T. as a “biological male” and calling for support of the BHS team. Around the same time, Kyle Fellers purchased pink wristbands, which Foote marked with various symbols: “XX” (female chromosomes), the female gender symbol, and “NAD” (“Not A Dude”). Foote distributed the wristbands to prepare for a coordinated demonstration at the game.
School officials, made aware of the planned protest through emails and posts, interpreted the “XX” symbol as an anti-transgender message based on its known associations with movements opposing transgender athletes in women’s sports. Concerned about potential harassment and disruption, School officials reminded parents of conduct policies prohibiting targeted or disruptive behavior at school events. On the day of the game, officials emailed BHS families to reiterate those expectations.
During the second half of the game, Foote and Fellers wore the “XX” wristbands and displayed a poster on Foote’s car with the message “Protect Women’s Sports.” Officials asked them to remove the wristbands. After some resistance, they complied. Eldon Rash then wore one of the wristbands and refused to remove it, prompting a confrontation that delayed the game until he ultimately complied. After the game, Fellers stood near the opposing team’s bus displaying his poster and was told by a police officer to leave school grounds.
Following the incident, School officials issued “No Trespass” orders. Foote was barred from school property for a week. Fellers, whose conduct was deemed more disruptive, was barred for a year, with limited exceptions. The Court later allowed him to attend soccer games while the motion for injunctive relief was pending, but barred him from wearing the wristbands.
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking injunctive relief to prevent the School from enforcing its restrictions on their expressive conduct at school events. They argued that the School’s actions violated their First Amendment rights. Specifically, they claimed their protest—wearing wristbands with the “XX” symbol—was constitutionally protected, non-disruptive expression opposing transgender girls in girls’ sports.
The legal framework required the Court to evaluate whether plaintiffs’ conduct constituted protected speech, the nature of the forum, and whether the School’s restrictions were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. The Court also applied the standard for preliminary injunctions, requiring plaintiffs to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, favorable equities, and public interest.
Plaintiffs contended that their conduct was peaceful, passive expression on a public issue, not aimed at P.T. personally, and that the School’s actions constituted viewpoint discrimination.
The District countered that, given the controversy and context, the wristbands and signs were reasonably interpreted as demeaning and targeted at a transgender student, posing risks of harassment and psychological harm. Officials emphasized their duty under Title IX and state law to prevent discrimination and argued their restrictions were reasonable, content-neutral measures to preserve a safe environment.
The Court held that the soccer field was a limited public forum where reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions are permissible. While it found the plaintiffs’ speech was protected, it concluded the School’s restrictions were lawful in context.
Citing L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, a 2024 First Circuit case involving a student prohibited from wearing a “There Are Only Two Genders” shirt, the Court explained that even passive, symbolic speech may be restricted if it is reasonably interpreted as demeaning and likely to cause psychological harm to vulnerable students. It found that the wristbands, in context, conveyed a message invalidating transgender identities and were reasonably seen as harassing and harmful.
The Court rejected plaintiffs’ viewpoint discrimination claim, holding that the School’s actions were based on the impact of the speech—not its viewpoint—and were consistent with policies applicable to all attendees. The fact that the protest was peaceful did not negate its harmful effect or the School’s authority to regulate it.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims and denied their motion for a preliminary injunction.
Fellers v. Kelley (D.N.H. Apr. 14, 2025) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70176.
Note: This court held that passive, symbolic speech—such as wearing wristbands with anti-transgender messages—may be lawfully restricted at school events if it is reasonably seen as demeaning or harmful to students. Although this case involved a public school and their parents, high school students (though notably not parents) at private schools in California have similar free speech rights as high school students at public schools.