There is a major ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on both free speech and student rights. The court, sitting en banc, ruled 10-7 that “the mere use of biological pronouns does not entail ‘aggressive, disruptive action.'” In the lengthy opinion, the court split along political lines with every Republican appointee voting with the student challengers and every Democratic appointee voting with the school district.
The case originated in the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, located in the northern suburbs of Columbus. A parent objected to the district’s anti-harassment policy that included sanctions for any student who refused to use the preferred pronouns of transgender classmates. Such violations were deemed “contrary to the other student’s identity.”
The Olentangy district argued that the use of unwanted pronouns was analogous to “Hispanic students being told by classmates to ‘go back to Mexico!’”
An earlier panel on the Sixth Circuit upheld the ruling of District Court Judge Algenon Marbley, a Clinton appointee, in denying relief.
In an opinion by Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, a Trump appointee, the court ruled that there was no evidence that the use of traditional pronouns produced the “substantial interference” that the Supreme Court set as the test in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969).
“In this case’s current posture, the school district 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. Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive—just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights. 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.”
Judge Murphy added: “Unlike, say, a political diatribe about transgender rights in math class, the mere use of biological pronouns does not entail ‘aggressive, disruptive action.’ Nor does the school district suggest that such speech has ever disrupted any school activity in the past.”
In dissent, Circuit Judge Jane Stranch, an Obama appointee, insisted that the policy met the standard in combating bullying and harassment of transgender students. She asked, “What, then, must a school district show to demonstrate that particular speech is sufficiently bullying or harassing to render it regulable under the First Amendment?” She argued that officials are allowed to anticipate such disruptions and need not wait for students to be actually harassed:
“Tinker…does not require school authorities to wait for a disturbance before regulating speech, nor does it “require certainty that disruption will occur.” Lowery, 497 F.3d at 591–92 (quoting Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 467 F.3d 755, 767 n.17 (9th Cir. 2006)). To do so would place school officials “between the proverbial rock and hard place: either they allow disruption to occur, or they are guilty of a constitutional violation.” Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 565 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lowery, 497 F.3d at 596). “Such a rule is not required by Tinker, and would be disastrous public policy” because it would strip officials of the ability to carry out the “affirmative duty to not only ameliorate the harmful effects of disruptions, but to prevent them from happening in the first place.” Lowery, 497 F.3d at 596. School officials must merely demonstrate that the school reasonably forecast that disruption would occur based on the speech at issue. Id. Given administrators’ need to affirmatively protect the learning environment, moreover, officials will sometimes be unable “to offer any ‘proof’ [of disruption] beyond common-sense conclusions based on human experience.” Id. at 594. Such “common-sense conclusions,” we noted, “do not require substantial evidentiary support.” Id.”
It is not clear whether the district will appeal. An en banc decision will often get closer scrutiny from clerks in petitions for certiorari. The question is whether the district wants to risk doubling down on a losing hand if the Supreme Court affirms the judgment. Some advocates may be leery of rolling the dice on a further appeal given the implications of an adverse decision on pronouns that applies nationwide.
If the two parties stop playing politics, the trans athletes in high school sports is extremely easy to solve.
Nationwide trans athletes are less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire student population.
To put that in proportion, decades ago Congress passed Title IX to allowed millions of girls to participate in school sports just like boys. This solution is way cheaper to taxpayers than Title IX funding.
If Congress created Title IX (millions of girl athletes), it would be extremely easy for Congress to create and fund a totally separate league just for transgender athletes.
Republicans might love this solution also. It’s somewhat satisfies their more Libertarian-Republicans like Rand Paul (individual freedom for each of us) and Democrats would love it also. The biggest winners would be the kids both straight and trans.
Anonymous, be careful what you wish for. If funding were made available for trans athletes according to your statistics the bleachers would be empty. What happened? In your previous postings you have demanded that trans men should be allowed to participate in women’s sports. Is this a moment of moderation on your part now that you realize that you have lost the argument. Anyone who has read your contributions knows that if the Democrats regain power your flip will be a flop.
Title 9 uses the word “sex” not gender. The court affirmed that sex is biological and identified at birth. Gender is a construct, the concept of gender identity is not protected as the law is currently written.
Only done so by a bunch of self absorbed activist idiots wearing black robes…fuggem
A penis is a penis and a vagina is a vagina. You can cut it off or sew it shut, it doesn’t change anything.
Lost in all this is the notion of what is best for the student in question. There are legitimately trans people for whom transition is the best decision. But there are an awful lot more people that are being funneled into the trans industry who don’t belong there. It used to be that transitioning was only taken up after long consideration of the cost and benefits. Today, if you just say “I’m uncomfortable in my body”, they’ll start you on trans medication right away. It’s insanity. And consider: For everyone that says not acknowledging someone being trans pushes them to suicide, what do you think the mental health damage is on someone who is NOT trans being pushed into transitioning? If the trend had continued, transitioning would become this generation’s version of Ritalin.
Many people with serious mental health problems are being shunted into transitioning by therapists who get a righteous rush out of cracking another egg and doctors who see dollar signs. People on the edge are being told “Just transition, and all your problems will go away” and it’s just a flat out lie.
LGBTQ+ supporters have made tremendous progress in the 21st Century, but they could lose the progress they’ve already gained if they move faster than the courts.
Those LGBTQ+ supporters shouldn’t stop pushing in the courts, but in the 21st Century an ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court – led by John Roberts – ruled that every American (regardless of sexual orientation) has equal rights to marriage benefits and equal rights to adopt children as any other American.
What is not yet settled in the court system are pronouns (government forcing certain speech onto citizens) and transgender athletes violating Title IX (benefiting girl’s and women’s sports).
Until these issues are settled in the court system, LGBTQ+ supporters are harming their own cause using punitive action.
I truly dont understand this answer tbh..
“…but in the 21st Century an ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court – led by John Roberts…”
What makes this court ultra-orthodox?
Because they do not submit to your view?
“…What is not yet settled in the court system are pronouns (government forcing certain speech onto citizens)…”
Who is forcing pronouns? The question is that we can alter biological reality to kneel before ideology.
The ones who will be ‘forced’ – as you are stating – are the students who need to reject common reality to be subjected to the mental illness from others..
I – on the other hand – don’t want to force anyone.
If you feel good calling others by their preferred pronounce > Great!
If you want to use the correct pronounce > Great!
Forced to use the pronounce based upon reality > not great..
Forced to use the pronounce based upon the mental illness of someone else > not great..
As long we do understand their is something called a biological reality.
Identity/gender is a ideology, not reality.
Tinker isn’t really on point here. Tinker upheld student’s rights to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam war. This case is akin to the school board forcing all students to wear armbands. Forced speech is a bigger threat to free speech than censorship is (I know that a preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with).
Every case needs to be heard. Even something as stupid as that pronouns case. What is most disturbing is that it had to reach such a high level court to be ended correctly. And even there the extent of Leftist aggression and insanity is shocking.
In a country with better judges the case would have been thrown out by the first court to hear it.
In a country with a better basing in civics the school would never have instituted such a policy.
In a country of citizens with greater mental fortitude the psyop of the trans agenda being used as an attack on the nation’s children would have been met with immediate destruction.
Comparing “Hispanic students being told by classmates to ‘go back to Mexico!’” to biological male insisting to be called she/her/Peggy? Not even close!
Considering you’re not Hispanic, can you prove what you claim?
Considering you are anonymous, and you seem to doubt his claim, can you disprove it? Can, and will you back up every assertion that YOU make with some kind of proof?
This doesn’t seem like the kind of forum where proof of simple assertions is a reasonable thing to expect. Maybe it would be a better use of your time to restrict your leisure reading to academic journals, where you’re more likely to find proofs.
very clear, Democrats are fascists, who FORCE you to accept their insanity!
there should be 7 case of judicial malpractice cases !
Whatever “never-Trump” Republicans say about Trump, they can’t fault his judicial picks. Consider the alternative.
Why not simply compel everyone, at all times, to only use the term “comrade”, teachers and judges included? So very much simpler and less incremental in wasting time and treasure.
I understand in NYC under Zohran Mamdani it will be “Comrade”.
President Donald Trump went on a Sunday night pardon spree, granting full clemency to at least 77 individuals involved in promoting alternate electors in battleground states after the 2020 election, including former Trump attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, according to Axios.
Wait a minute. I thought the insurrection was fake news? by these pardons trump is admitting they all tried to stay in power when they lost the election in 2020.
Under the first amendment, Americans have the right to freedom of speech, including questioning election results, especially election results as shady as the ones in 2020 where they had to go dark for four days in order to fabricate enough fake ballots to steal the election. I understand that your side doesn’t like the constitution but that’s too bad.
Keep saying. a lie long enough and you believe your own words.
How are those grocery prices? Lower? BS
How about that $2 per gallon for gas? BS
Your orange god lies to you and you eat it up. Sad.
Odd they are coming down. Except in blue cities.
Where is gas $2 per gallon?
What imaginary world do you live in where grocery prices are coming down?
You moron, the gas and grocery prices are all subject to the inflation and stagflation of the dollar left by Dementia Joe. EVERY commodity that I can think of doubled with Biden. Trump is doing what he can to turn the ship, it takes time and common sense policies. $38T is an astronomical number, it’s going to hurt to fix it before it gets better. All Americans better be preparing to live without the govermteat in their mouth, it’s coming.
I remember when the libs freaked out when Bush beat Gore.
Funny part. Bush didn’t try to send anyone them to jail.
No. He simply undoing injustices perpetrated by the DOJ. The folks who broke into the Capitol building on J6, who were incarcerated for malfeasance, were actually unarmed citizens guilty of trespassing. Those unarmed citizens who did not break into the Capitol Building were exercising their right to dissent.
Wait a minute. I thought the insurrection was fake news?
It was.
by these pardons trump is admitting they all tried to stay in power when they lost the election in 2020.
How so? He’s not admitting anything. He pardoned them because they did nothing wrong, and are being persecuted for no good reason. Now they need no longer live in fear that the next administration will decide to prosecute them.
“An earlier panel on the Sixth Circuit upheld the ruling of District Court Judge Algenon Marbley”. So there were two court actions that found in favor of ridiculous? Such is the state of our modern day judiciary.
Yay!!!!!!!!!
When pronouns fly in the face of reality, it’s time to re-think those pronouns. And when students and teachers are required to waste time pandering to students who are unhappy with their God-given sex, it’s way past time to reconsider the purpose of education vs indoctrination. Is it any wonder that US students have fallen behind students from other developed countries, despite the fact that we spend more $ / student than those other counties? Too much time is spent on our teachers’ hang-ups at the expense of STEM subjects.
What is reality?
Leftists are insane. That’s reality. Men who think they’re women, that’s insane. Women who think they’re men, that’s insane. Getting body parts chopped off to become something that you can never be, that’s insane. Understanding biological truth? That’s reality.
What is a leftist?
A place you have never visited. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Are you related to Justice Brown, who can’t define what a woman is?
Suze,
Well said.
The fact we have allowed these radical school boards, teachers to highjack the educational system over a few gender confused students is insane.
The mere fact this is even before a Court is beyond the bounds of common sense. Transgender along with every other fabricated gender of the 21st Century is a MH issue not a Court issue. 7 US Court of Appeals appointees are just about as insane as this “pronoun” crazy issue.
So in your expert opinion, if an American citizen’s lawsuit doesn’t abide by your conservative definition of common sense, it doesn’t deserve to be heard by any court?
This only works if there are no universal standards, rules, or truth. “My lived experience <-my truth<- objective truth”. Complete bastardization.
The fact that these days we can’t get the liberal jurists to see the law, precedence and the Constitution as controlling how to decide cases and instead they vote for results oriented decisions every time and unanimously. They have taken over the legal world and it is now full of Katanji Brown Jackson types that ignore what has been our jurisprudence.
As an example of my point I will ask can anyone argue that there would be a liberal decision analogous to Justice Scalia voting to allow flag burning under the First Amendment? Scalia hated flag burning and would have loved to ban it, but his great legal mind overcame his conservative leaning and allowed him to make the right call. Would Sotomayor or Jackson ever do such a thing??
“these days we can’t get the liberal jurists to see the law, precedence…” Get?
Great job picking a nit. Ok how is this, “these days the liberal jurists won’t see the law…”?
Nit as in nitwit?
No the democrats are not insane. They just seek to control the thought by controlling the speech. Sort of “1984” and newspeak. Reprehensible but not insane. It would be nice if they were insane because there might be medication for them.
“No the democrats are not insane. They just seek to control the thought by controlling the speech. ”
No the republicans are not insane. They just seek to control the thought by controlling the speech. Fixed it for you.
He made no errors. He expressed his idea exactly the way he wanted to express it.
What you did was completely alter his idea by changing one word, then fraudulently asserted you fixed an error.
Fraudulently, really? Its called humor.
Huh? Which side just bright the suit because mentally challenged people failed basic biology.
Compelled speech is as obnoxious to free speech as is censorship. This is a clear first amendment violation.
Using that logic you could be arrested because some official thinks your action or speech might cause an illegal action in the future.
The scary part is this wasn’t a unanimous decision. Democrats are insane.
Define insane in this case please?
Why?
Why not?
You for this comment.