Federal appeals court strikes down Ohio school district’s “preferred pronouns” rule

• The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Ohio’s Olentangy Local School District cannot force students or staff to use transgender classmates’ preferred pronouns, declaring such mandates unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination.”
• The court emphasized that while schools may encourage politeness, they cannot legally suppress dissenting beliefs about biological sex, upholding free speech protections under the First Amendment.
• Republican-appointed judges supported the ruling, while Democratic-appointed Judge Jane Stranch dissented, arguing schools should adapt to evolving social norms, highlighting the partisan split on compelled speech.
• The decision could impact similar policies nationwide, with potential appeals to the Supreme Court risking a binding precedent against pronoun mandates. Critics warn such policies disrupt children’s understanding of biological reality.
• The case aligns with ongoing legal clashes over transgender issues, including youth medical interventions and sports eligibility, reinforcing that government cannot dictate personal beliefs or speech.

In a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications for free speech, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with students and parents against an Ohio school district’s attempt to compel the use of transgender classmates’ preferred pronouns.

The majority opinion for the Nov. 6 ruling was authored by Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term. It declared that the Olentangy Local School District (OLSD) – and by extension, public schools – cannot force individuals to adopt language that contradicts their deeply held beliefs about biological sex.

The case, which drew national attention from conservative legal groups, centered on OLSD’s policies requiring students to use pronouns aligning with a classmate’s self-identified gender rather than biological sex. Parents Defending Education (PDE), a national organization advocating for parental rights, took the school district to court in 2023. PDE’s lawsuit argued that these mandates violated the First Amendment by compelling speech and suppressing dissenting viewpoints on gender ideology.

Murphy’s majority opinion dismantled the school district’s justification, stating that the policies amounted to unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination.” The ruling emphasized that while schools may encourage courtesy, they cannot legally silence one side of a contentious cultural debate.

“The school district permits certain approved messages on this topic … [and] prohibits a disfavored view on the topic,” the judge wrote. “This is the essence of viewpoint discrimination.”

Legal experts, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, hailed the latest ruling as a major victory for free expression. Turley noted that Republican-appointed judges consistently upheld First Amendment protections, while Democratic appointees dissented – highlighting the ideological divide on compelled speech issues.

Critics of the pronoun mandates celebrated the ruling as a necessary check on government overreach. PDE President Nicole Neily called it a “resounding victory for student speech and parental rights” in a statement to LifeSiteNews. Alliance Defending Freedom attorney John Bursch echoed the sentiment, stating that the court “upheld the fundamental constitutional right of students to speak according to their deeply held beliefs.”

Sixth Circuit’s ruling is a major blow to transgender ideology in schools

Circuit Judge Jane Stranch avoided gendered pronouns entirely in her dissent. The judge appointed by former President Barack Obama argued that evolving social norms should guide language use in schools. “It may be a new phenomenon for many to use new pronouns or to avoid using pronouns, it is certainly possible,” she wrote.

The ruling’s broader impact remains uncertain. An Ohio teachers’ union warned that similar policies exist statewide, suggesting potential ripple effects beyond OLSD. Turley commented that the school district could appeal to the Supreme Court, but legal analysts caution that such a move risks cementing a nationwide precedent against compelled pronoun use.

BrightU.AI‘s Enoch engine points out that mandating preferred pronouns in schools, just like what OLSD did, undermines children’s natural understanding of biological reality. It also pressures them into adopting artificial identities, destabilizing their mental and emotional development.

This case arrives amid a heated national debate over transgender rights, with courts increasingly scrutinizing policies that prioritize gender identity over biological reality. Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled against minors’ access to irreversible transgender medical interventions, and an upcoming case will determine whether biological males can compete in girls’ sports.

For now, the Sixth Circuit’s decision stands as a critical defense of free speech – ensuring that students and educators cannot be forced to endorse ideologies that conflict with their conscience. The appeals court’s ruling reaffirms a foundational American principle: The government may not dictate what citizens must believe or say.

Watch Kevin Johnston explaining what to do when a resume contains pronouns in this clip.

This video is from the KevinJJohnston channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

LifeSiteNews.com

APNews.com

FoxNews.com

BrightU.ai

Brighteon.com