Wearing A Pink XX Wristband

 A related case:

it “is well-established that the government may not retaliate against individuals for exercising their rights under the First Amendment. See, e.g., Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 732 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 2013); Blue v. Koren, 72 F.3d 1075, 1082 (2d Cir. 1995). That is especially true when the government singles out a speaker for disfavored treatment based on the views he or she has expressed. ‘It is a fundamental principle of the First Amendment that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. Such discrimination based on viewpoint is an egregious [*8] form of content discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional.’ Ragbir v. Homan, 923 F.3d 53, 70 (2d Cir. 2019).

And

“Moreover, in the specific context of retaliation by a school official restricting access to athletic events, we have said that where, as here, a public school invites parents and other spectators to attend sporting events held in its gymnasium, the gymnasium operates as ‘a limited public forum’ and the school may restrict access to a limited public forum only when (1) ‘its restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral,’ or (2) ‘there is a clear and present danger of disruptions such as disorder, riot, obstruction of the event, or immediate threat to public safety.’ Perry, 859 F.3d at 175. 

Link to the above two quotes.

Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, pointed to Tinker v. Des Moines, the 1969 Supreme Court decision holding that a school district’s ban on students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was unconstitutional.

“Um, the Supreme Court said this was a First Amendment violation over 50 years ago in the context of black armbands/Vietnam,” said Mr. Shapiro on X.

Link