News
A federal appeals court sides with a parent group in the fight over an Ohio school district’s pronoun policy
By: Julie Carr Smyth | AP
Posted on:
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A divided federal appeals court in Ohio ruled against the state’s fourth largest school district on Thursday in a case that pitted its gender pronoun policy against the rights of students who believe there are only two genders.

“Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive — just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights,” Circuit Judge Eric Murphy wrote for the majority. “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.”
Circuit Judge Jane Stranch retorted in a dissent written entirely without the use of gendered, third-person pronouns for individuals.
While “it may be a new phenomenon for many to use new pronouns or to avoid using pronouns, it is certainly possible,” Stranch wrote, adding that “social mores around pronouns have shifted over the course of American history, and these shifting mores have not suddenly rendered people unable to speak.”
It is not clear how far-reaching the impacts of the ruling might be. One Ohio teachers’ union had told the court that Olentangy’s policies are substantially similar to those used by districts around the state.
A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit had found against the organization in July 2024, ruling that the school district had sufficiently shown that the speech it sought to prohibit would disrupt classroom instruction. That earlier decision also held that those policies did not compel students and families represented by the parents’ group to use any certain pronouns to address LGBTQ+ students nor suppress alternative viewpoints.
Thursday’s ruling reversed that decision and sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley in Columbus to issue a preliminary injunction against Olentangy enforcing the pronoun policies.
At issue in the case were overlapping district policies that prohibited the use of gender-related language that other students might deem insulting, dehumanizing, unwanted or offensive and call for the use of peers’ “preferred pronouns.”
The district’s electronic devices policy — which applies both on and off school time — prohibits transmitting “disruptive” material or material that could be seen as harassing or disparaging other students based on their gender identity or sexual orientation, among other categories.
A separate antidiscrimination policy prohibits students from saying or writing “discriminatory language” when they’re under the school’s authority. The policy bans derogatory comments, jokes or slurs based on a range of factors, including gender identity.
The district’s code of conduct echoes many of the same themes a third time.
