The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in on a case involving the Olentangy Local School District in Ohio and its policy regarding the use of pronouns. The court ruled that the school district cannot punish students simply for using pronouns that align with a student’s biological sex, even if the student prefers different pronouns. This decision, issued on November 6, 2025, after a rehearing en banc, stems from a lawsuit brought by Defending Education, formerly known as Parents Defending Education, which argued that the school district’s policy violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.
The case, which has drawn significant attention, highlights the ongoing debate surrounding transgender rights and the use of pronouns. The court’s decision is a significant legal victory for those who believe in the importance of using pronouns that align with biological sex, but it also underscores the complexities of balancing free speech rights with the need to create a safe and inclusive environment for all students.
The Heart of the Matter
The Olentangy Local School District’s policy at the center of the dispute prohibited students from referring to transgender and nonbinary classmates using pronouns that did not align with their preferred gender identity. Defending Education, a parent-led organization, challenged this policy on behalf of its members, arguing that it violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The organization’s members, including parents and students, believe that a person’s sex is immutable and that using pronouns reflecting biological sex is a way of expressing this belief. They argued that the school district’s policy forced them to express a message they did not believe in.
The school district, on the other hand, argued that its policy was necessary to protect transgender and nonbinary students from bullying and harassment. The district maintained that the policy was designed to create a safe and inclusive learning environment for all students, regardless of their gender identity.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Sixth Circuit, in its ruling, sided with Defending Education, concluding that the school district’s policy violated the First Amendment. The court’s decision rested primarily on the principle established in the landmark case *Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District* (1969), which deals with student speech in schools. The court found that the school district’s policy restricted personal expression on a matter of public concern (the debate over transgender rights) and discriminated based on viewpoint.
In its analysis, the court found that the school district had not presented evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or constitute harassment under Ohio law. The court emphasized that the school district could not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would “materially and substantially disrupt” school activities or infringe the legal “rights of others” in the school community, as established in *Tinker*.
The court also noted that the school district’s policy discriminated based on viewpoint. The policy allowed students to use preferred pronouns, thus supporting a particular view on gender identity, while prohibiting the use of biological pronouns, which expressed a different view. The court found that the school district could 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 reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case, ordering the entry of a preliminary injunction to prevent the school district from punishing students for using biological pronouns. However, the court clarified that its decision did not prevent the school district from enforcing its anti-harassment policies against the abuse of transgender students.
Dissenting Views
While the court’s majority opinion was joined by several judges, the ruling also sparked several concurring and dissenting opinions. Judge Alice M. Batchelder, in her concurring opinion, argued that the school district’s policies were unconstitutional for at least three reasons: they violated the prohibition against compelled speech, they constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination, and the school district failed to meet the requirements of *Tinker*. Judges Thapar and Nalbandian, in their concurring opinion, went further, arguing that the school district’s policies were invalid because they discriminated based on viewpoint against one side of an ongoing political debate.
Judge Bush, in his concurring opinion, took a different tack, arguing that the government has no authority to regulate grammar and that the school district was attempting to rewrite traditional grammar. Judge Stranch, writing in dissent, argued that the school district’s policies were justified because they were necessary to protect transgender and nonbinary students from bullying and harassment and to promote a safe and inclusive learning environment.
The Broader Implications
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in *Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education* has significant implications for schools across the country. The ruling reinforces the importance of protecting free speech rights in schools, even when the speech involves controversial topics. It also suggests that schools must be careful not to discriminate based on viewpoint when regulating student speech.
The case is likely to be appealed, and the Supreme Court may ultimately have to weigh in on the issue. Until then, the Sixth Circuit’s decision will serve as a guide for schools in Ohio and other states within the circuit’s jurisdiction. It will also contribute to the ongoing legal and social debate surrounding transgender rights and the use of pronouns.