School District Can’t Force Students To Use Preferred Pronouns Of Trans Classmates, Court Rules

Students in one of Ohio’s largest school districts cannot be forced to use the preferred pronouns or acknowledge the gender identity of their trans-identifying classmates, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday.

The 112-page ruling smacks down a policy put into place by the Olentangy Local School District that punished students for discrimination by referring to trans-identifying classmates by their “biological pronouns” or “using gendered language they know is contrary to the other student’s identity.” The district encompasses a suburban area just north of Columbus and is Ohio’s fourth-largest.

The court ruled that the policy raises “serious free-speech concerns.” The case was brought by the advocacy group Parents Defending Education — which now goes by Defending Education. The conservative group argued that the policy was unconstitutional and forced students to adopt speech that went against their religious beliefs. Numerous other conservative and religious groups, including Alliance Defending Freedom and the Manhattan Institute, signed an amicus brief opposing the school district’s policy.

In its ruling, the appeals court said that the school district “introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law.”

“Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive — just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights. The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view,” the court added in its ruling.

Defending Education argued that a rule requiring students “to affirm the idea that gender is fluid” would force them to go against their firmly held religious beliefs that “biological sex is immutable and that individuals cannot transition from one sex to another.” It further argued that Olentangy Local School District’s policy on pronouns sought to control students’ speech outside of classroom hours.

After the policy went into effect, a concerned parent of a “devoutly Christian child” emailed the district in 2023, asking about the rule on pronoun use. The school district told the parent, “A student purposefully referring to another student by using gendered language they know is contrary to the other student’s identity would be an example of discrimination under Board Policy.” That email exchange led to the lawsuit filed by Defending Education. The parent who sent the email is part of the conservative organization.

The court was divided in its ruling, with Circuit Judge Jane Stranch arguing that students could completely avoid using third-person pronouns if their faith doesn’t allow them to affirm a gender identity. Stranch wrote in her dissent, “First, while it may be a new phenomenon for many to use new pronouns or to avoid using pronouns, it is certainly possible.” To prove her point, the judge wrote her entire dissent without using “gendered third person pronouns” other than in quotations.

“Second, while there may be a learning curve for young students who, on occasion, might forget and use non-preferred pronouns, the District’s Policies prohibit only the intentional use of non-preferred pronouns,” Stranch added.

The U.S. appeals court decision came on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a separate ruling on gender and allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to require Americans to mark their biological sex on passports. In a 6-3 unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court froze a lower court’s order that stopped the Trump administration from removing the “X” gender option on passports.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment,” the court wrote. “And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government’s choice to display biological sex ‘lack[s] any purpose other than a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group.’”