On November 6, 2025, Defending Ed secured a victory in its long-standing Ohio School District compelled speech case. The federal appellate court ruling frames out the most expansive defense of student First Amendment Protections since the 1960s, and can now be used to support the challenges of other litigants against the same types of unconstitutional policies. 

In 2023, Defending Education sued Olentangy Local School District in Ohio over the district’s unconstitutional “harassment” policies and Codes of Conduct that violated students’ First Amendment rights by compelling students to use “preferred pronouns” to affirm the gender identity of their peers – even if doing so would be contrary to their deeply held beliefs. If students failed to comply with this thought-police regime, they faced punishment ranging from “no-contact orders” to suspension or expulsion.

According to the District, “misgendering” is a form of prohibited speech because transgender students are a protected class – and as a result, “misgendering” can and will subject students to formal discipline. In addition, the policy asserts that “harassment” can take many forms, such as “gestures,” “language,” and “encouraging” harassment.

The originally challenged policies also violated the Fourteenth Amendment by regulating students’ speech outside school; the district’s cell phone policy and the Code of Conduct infringe on parental rights, because how students use their devices off school grounds to discuss gender issues is the responsibility of their families and not the government.

In the course of this litigation, the district attempted to moot the case by adjusting some of its policies slightly to evade accountability; in September 2024, the school board amended its anti-harassment rules to eliminate speech that might “cause discomfort or humiliation” or amount to “teasing” from the definition of “bullying.” It also revised its cell phone policy to clarify that the policy should “not be interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students (i.e., to prohibit a reasoned and civil exchange of opinions, or debate, that is conducted at appropriate times and places during the school day and is protected by State or Federal law).” As the en banc court notes, however, “these modest changes do not moot the threatened freedom-of-speech injury … To the contrary, the School District admits that it will continue to bar what it calls ‘misgendering’ if it determines that this speech ‘rises to the level of bullying or harassment.’”

Sixth Circuit precedent in this case has been clear: in 2021’s Meriwether v. Hartop, the court found that that a “preferred pronoun” requirement was “anathema to the principles underlying the First Amendment” because “[p]ronouns can and do convey a powerful message implicating a sensitive topic of public concern.” Put differently, pronouns have the “power to validate—or invalidate—someone’s perceived sex or gender identity.” Schools cannot effectively compel their preferred viewpoint (e.g., persons can transition genders) and ban the opposing viewpoint (e.g., sex is immutable).

Defending Education President and Founder, Nicole Neily, celebrated the victory:

“We are deeply gratified by the Sixth Circuit’s intensive analysis not only of our case but the state of student First Amendment rights in modern era. The court’s decision – and its many concurrences – articulate the importance of free speech, the limits and perils of public schools claiming to act in loco parentis, and the critical role of persuasion – rather than coercion – in America’s public square.”

Defending Education Vice President, Sarah Parshall Perry, added:

“Despite its ham-fisted attempt to moot the case, Olentangy School District was sternly reminded by the 6th circuit en banc court that it cannot force students to express a viewpoint on gender identity with which they disagree, nor extend its reach beyond the schoolhouse threshold into matters better suited to an exercise of parental authority. A resounding victory for student speech and parental rights was long overdue for families in the school district and we are thrilled the court’s ruling will benefit others seeking to vindicate their rights in the classroom and beyond.”

---

Read the full decision below: