CINCINNATI, Ohio (Michigan News Source) – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit just sent a message that echoes from Columbus, Ohio to Kalamazoo, Michigan: public schools can’t force students to use “preferred pronouns” simply because administrators think it’s more polite.
The court ruled that the Olentangy Local School District in Ohio cannot discipline students for using pronouns aligned with biological sex unless the school can show real, measurable “substantial disruption” to learning or school operations. That standard comes from the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, which protects student speech unless it actually interferes with education. In other words, mere discomfort or disagreement is not grounds for censorship. Schools may manage behavior – but they don’t get to police beliefs.
MORE NEWS: Lawmaker Calls to Expel State Board of Education: ‘Politics are Baked Into the Structure’
Because of this ruling, schools under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit can no longer call speech “harassment” just because they disagree with it. The ruling now binds every public school in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan, setting the controlling First Amendment standard for all four states. Going forward, K–12 districts, school boards, and administrators – whether drafting new “equity” policies or enforcing existing ones – must operate within this constitutional limit or risk getting sued.
The court’s logic.
The Olentangy school district argued that forcing students to use preferred pronouns was necessary to maintain a respectful environment and mitigate harassment. However, First Amendment rights don’t disappear when you enter a school.
The court said three key things:
1. Using biological pronouns is not disruptive
2. Requiring speech is worse than restricting speech 3. Feeling “uncomfortable” is not a legal justification
Why Michigan Schools should pay attention.
For Michigan districts, the ruling means no automatic punishment for students who use biological pronouns; no hiding behind “anti-bullying” policy language to enforce ideological conformity; and no disciplinary referrals because students won’t use the terms “ze” or “zir.”
To discipline a student over pronouns, a Michigan school must now prove the speech caused or is reasonably likely to cause a substantial disruption, or the speech legally qualifies as harassment, not just hurt feelings.
Attorney: schools may encourage respect, but they cannot compel speech.
MORE NEWS: Muslim Community Relatively Silent on Dearborn Terrorism Probe
Michigan News Source reached out to constitutional attorney David Kallman of Kallman Legal Group about this case and he said while schools may still promote respectful behavior, they cannot compel students to adopt ‘preferred’ language. Can they encourage students to do something? “Sure,” said Kallman, “But if it’s done in a way that is clear to the students, you gotta do it, then it’s really not encouragement.” He added that the Sixth Circuit ruling simply reaffirms existing First Amendment standards already in place.
Kallman said, “The safer course for a school would be to say ‘We can’t require it. We want everybody to be respectful, no bullying, no harassment,’ but you can’t force people to use a particular name.” At its core, he said, “All this means is you can’t force a child to use these preferred pronouns…And that, in and of itself, the court ruled is not bullying, it’s not harassment.”
In addition, Kallman said the decision also clarifies the difference between protected expression and actual misconduct. “Words can be offensive. Words can be terrible and awful, but they’re not violent acts,” he noted. Instead, he argued, the real coercion came from policies that punished students who declined to use pronouns against their beliefs. “Who was being bullied here? These students, these parents, these teachers who wanted to have a clear conscience and not be forced to lie,” he said.
The ruling, he added, reflected longstanding constitutional limits on compelled speech and he reiterated a famous phrase from the Tinker case: “Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.” He added, “the government cannot compel a person to lie.”
In plain English.
Michigan schools may encourage kindness. They may discourage bullying. But they may not force speech. Students are allowed to believe what they believe about biology, gender, or anything else – whether administrators approve or not. At least that’s the case now in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan.
