Defending Education v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

On June 18, 2026, Defending Education brought suit against the Regents of the University of California system and various other university officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Governments cannot ban speech merely because some find it “offensive.” Papish v. Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo., 410 U.S. 667, 670 (1973). And they certainly cannot coerce speech on “matters of profound value and concern to the public” like “sexual orientation and gender identity.” Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. 878, 913-14 (2018) (cleaned up). This is especially true for colleges and universities, where students’ First Amendment rights are at their strongest. See Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972).

The University of California (UC) is flouting these fundamental principles. Under the guise of combatting “sexual harassment,” UC has enacted a speech code that punishes students for engaging in protected speech and discourages them from expressing views outside of the university-approved mainstream.

UC’s “Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment” Policy contains a hostile-environment harassment provision that disciplines students who engage in “unwelcome … sex-based conduct” that is “offensive” and “sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it limits or interferes with a person’s educational experience. The Hostile-Environment Provision extends beyond the Supreme Court’s standard for actionable harassment in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999), which was crafted precisely to avoid clashing with the First Amendment.

According to UC, its Policy prohibits speech in addition to physical conduct: “[S]ex-based conduct includes acts of verbal … intimidatio[n] or hostility based on gender, gender identity, gender expression, sex- or gender-stereotyping, or sexual orientation.” And it covers “derogatory names or slurs,” “offensive terms,” and “jokes.” For example, students who voice dissenting opinions on transgender issues, like the belief that someone should “use a particular bathroom that does not correspond to their gender identity,” can be punished under the Hostile-Environment Provision.

Worse, the SVSH Policy goes on to state, in FAQ #14, that it prohibits the “intentional or repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with [an] individual’s gender identity (i.e., misgendering).” FAQ #14 also prohibits students from “intentionally and repeatedly call[ing]” someone by a “dead name (i.e., refer[ring] to a name that a transgender person was given at birth but that they no longer use).”

Defending Education has members who attend UC System schools and whose protected speech is chilled by the SVSH Policy. The Hostile-Environment Provision and FAQ #14 should be declared unconstitutional and Defendants should be enjoined from enforcing them.

Case Details

Case Name
Defending Education v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

Case Status
Pending Case

Location
California

Date Filed
June 18, 2026