The Sixth Circuit federal court of appeals recently ruled that public schools cannot punish students for using biological pronouns, finding that such discipline is likely a violation of the First Amendment. The en banc court held that a school district’s anti-harassment policies, which the District interpreted would penalize students for refusing to use classmates’ preferred pronouns, amounted to viewpoint discrimination. Because, the majority stated, that the policies compelled speech on a matter of public debate—gender identity—they triggered heightened constitutional scrutiny. The court emphasized that schools must show that such speech causes substantial disruption or qualifies as harassment under state law, which the school district failed to do. As a result, the court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the policies against students who use biological pronouns.
A parent had contacted the district about whether their Christian child would be forced to use preferred pronouns. The district responded that intentional misgendering could be considered discriminatory under its anti-harassment policies. Concerned that this interpretation infringed on students’ religious and scientific beliefs, the organization Defending Education sued on behalf of several families. The policies in question, covering harassment, bullying, and use of personal devices, were broad enough to include speech on and off campus. Although the district later amended some language, it maintained that misgendering could still be punished if deemed offensive or harassing. The court found this sufficient to establish a credible threat of enforcement. Ultimately, the ruling affirms that schools must balance inclusivity with constitutional protections for student expression.
This case clarifies the limits of a public school’s authority to regulate student speech, especially on contentious social issues like gender identity. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling underscores that policies compelling students to use preferred pronouns may need to meet strict constitutional standards and cannot suppress dissenting viewpoints without clear evidence of harassment or disruption. For educators, it signals the need to carefully balance inclusivity with First Amendment protections, ensuring that disciplinary policies do not infringe on students’ rights to express religious or scientific beliefs. There were multiple vigorous dissents which argued in favor of the District’s position.
Source: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District No. 2:23-cv-01595 (6th Cir. 2025)
