A common sense victory in Ohio in the pronoun wars

Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education is a victory for free speech and common sense. A divided Sixth Circuit temporarily enjoined officials in Ohio from compelling students to use the “preferred pronouns” of classmates that do not match their biological sexes.

In light of increasing conflicts over “preferred pronouns,” this column reviews Defending Education’s judicial history before reflecting on how it impacts the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion.

History and context

Controversy emerged in February 2023 when a parent, unidentified as a mother or father, contacted school officials in Olentangy, a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. The parent expressed concern about the board’s transgender policies. The parent of “a ‘devoutly Christian child’ who believes that only ‘two biological genders’ exist (‘male/female’)” feared that the child would “be subject to reprimand” for not obeying the policy.

The board’s attorney responded that because the policy “prohibits discrimination and harassment based upon a student’s sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity…using gendered language [children] know is contrary to the other student’s identity would be an example of discrimination under Board Policy.”

Stating that their youngsters have “no ill-will toward children or adults who identify as transgender or nonbinary,” but simply want “to use pronouns that are consistent with a classmate’s biological sex, rather than the classmate’s ‘preferred pronouns,’” three other parents joined the initial plaintiff in challenging the policy. The parents were assisted by Defending Education, a Virginia-based “national grassroots organization working to restore schools at all levels from activists imposing harmful agendas.”

The parents maintained that forcing children to use “preferred pronouns” and to ‘affirm’ that a biologically female classmate is actually a male—or vice versa—or that a classmate is ‘nonbinary’ and neither male nor female” would “violate their scientific and religious beliefs. Fearing that the “school officials or members of the broader community will retaliate against them for their beliefs,” the parents acted anonymously.

After a federal trial court and the Sixth Circuit rejected their claim, the parents appealed with the support of such divergent groups as Ohio’s American Civil Liberties Union and twenty-two state attorneys general, including Ohio’s. On November 6, 2025, an en banc panel of all active judges in the Sixth Circuit, in a 112-page opinion, reversed in favor of the parents in a ten-to-seven judgment.

The court began by acknowledging that because “[o]ur society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive, the board “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 majority then largely grounded its rationale in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, allowing students to wear black armbands to school protesting American involvement in Vietnam, citing it no less than thirty-five times in its thirty-three-page order.

According to Tinker, educators cannot limit student expressive activities unless they “‘materially and substantially disrupt’ school activities or infringe the legal ‘rights of others,’” emphasizing that the board “has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard. It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law.”

The court thus temporarily enjoined the board from “punishing students for the commonplace use of biological pronouns” because it did “not even try to argue that the speech itself—the commonplace use of biological pronouns—would “materially disrupt[] classwork” or other school activities.”

Five members of the court, all of whom joined its judgment, concurred for different reasons; three wrote separately, and two authored a joint opinion.

Ignoring the absence of evidence that students’ refraining from using “preferred pronouns” was problematic, seven judges dissented, arguing that officials sought “to prevent disruption in the form of trauma to transgender or nonbinary students of a degree likely to hamper those students’ ability to learn.”

The dissent further noted the rise in bullying, harassment, and suicides of transgender-nonbinary students, but failed to justify how the policy would have helped.

Reflection and analysis

Even as educators ignore parental concerns in continuing to promote gender ideology, the Sixth Circuit observed that public school officials “may not skew the debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view.”

Ironically, many who undoubtedly argued for people to “follow the science” during the COVID pandemic now attempt to obligate students and others to ignore biological realities by using the “preferred pronouns” of individuals experiencing gender dysphoria as they attempt to impose their views on others, regardless of their deeply held religious beliefs.

Viewing Defending Education in the larger context of freedom from compelled speech, the Sixth Circuit cited three Supreme Court cases reflecting its long-held position that individuals cannot be made to speak in manners inconsistent with their beliefs. Starting with 1943’s West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, resolved during the height of World War II and conflicts over the limits of state power and personal rights, the Justices first introduced this basic principle. The Court ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ children could not be forced to participate in the flag salute they viewed as a form of worshiping an image contrary to their beliefs because this would have “invade[d] the sphere of intellect and spirit which…is the purpose of the First Amendment.”

The Sixth Circuit also relied on 2018’s Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31, as the Supreme Court invalidated allowing unions to collect fair share fees, costs assessed to nonmembers they represented during collective bargaining negotiations. The Janus Court struck down these fees for violating the rights of nonunion members by obligating them to subsidize speech on matters of public concern with which they disagreed.

Surprisingly, the Sixth Circuit did not refer to 2018’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Supreme Court ruled that officials violated a baker’s rights by demonstrating clear and impermissible hostility toward his sincere religious beliefs that he would not prepare a cake for a same-sex couple because he believed marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The Justices found that requiring the baker to prepare the cake would have violated his religious beliefs, which opposed same-sex unions, because he could not be coerced to use his talents to express a perspective with which he disagreed.

The Sixth Circuit did cite 2023’s 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which the Supreme Court reasoned that the same Colorado Civil Rights Commission could not compel a wedding website designer to work with a same-sex couple. Not directly addressing the designer’s religious rights, the Justices decided that the Commission lacked the authority to direct her to speak through her work, given her sincerely held religious belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The Court explained that the Commission could not require the designer to violate her conscience and First Amendment rights to free speech.

In light of such clear and longstanding precedent prohibiting compelled speech, it is disappointing that school officials and activist judges ignored the Supreme Court in trammeling the free speech rights of students. While individuals experiencing gender dysphoria deserve respect, it is unfortunate that officials did not demonstrate the same toward the students who disagreed with their policy for religious reasons. What did “educators” hope to gain by attempting to violate students’ rights to free speech and religion? Absent disruptions, this policy was nothing more than an effort at dystopian political correctness, promoting only approved views.

Moving forward, even as courts remain split over whether educators can be compelled to speak in ways inconsistent with their religious beliefs, Defending Education may be a tide-turning return to sanity. Hopefully, Defending Education will serve as a beacon safeguarding the religious free speech rights of students, teachers, and people of faith from those who seek to force them to violate their constitutional rights by using the “preferred pronouns” of others in denying biological reality and Biblical truth.

Read original article