In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit thwarted an Iowa school district’s policy last Friday.
The policy in question mandated students and staff to “respect” the so-called gender identity of students by using the chosen names and pronouns of transgender students.
The court, stationed in St. Louis, ruled the policy as unconstitutionally vague under the First Amendment, positing a significant risk of arbitrary enforcement by administrators, Education Week reports.
Nicole Neily, the president of Parents Defending Education, expressed satisfaction with the 8th Circuit’s stand.
She said, “We are gratified that the 8th Circuit upheld the rights of families and students in Linn-Mar.”
Neily further criticized the district’s vague terms which, according to her, enabled arbitrary enforcement, especially when it concerned compelled student speech.
She added that “it is never acceptable to prohibit speech with vague terms that allow arbitrary enforcement, especially when compelled student speech is at stake, and this sends a clear message to other districts across the country with similar bullying and harassment policies on the books.”
The ruling, rendered on Sept 29 in the case of Parents Defending Education v. Linn-Mar Community School District, comes amidst a nationwide deliberation among school districts regarding policies affecting transgender students.
It also underscores the growing tension between federal and state law mandates against gender identity-based bullying and discrimination, and the First Amendment rights.
Judge Jane Kelly, concurring with the decision, acknowledged the tight spot the Iowa district found itself in.
She said that “schools are limited in their ability to regulate speech that is merely offensive to some listener,” yet noted the district’s “duty, under federal and state law, to protect students from harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex.”
Kelly emphasized that this duty extends to gender identity, as per Iowa law and recent interpretations of federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Judge Kelly praised the district’s intentions to foster a “safe, affirming, and healthy school environment where every student, including those of all gender identities, can learn effectively.”
However, she pointed out that the language employed by the district may have been “insufficiently tailored” to achieve this objective.
The policy, which was adopted by the 7,500-student Linn-Mar district in April 2022, included a “names and pronouns” section.
It stated that any “intentional and/or persistent refusal by staff or students to respect a student’s gender identity is a violation of school board policies,” referring to its anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies.
Parents Defending Education, along with some anonymous parents from the district, challenged the policy in federal district court, alleging it infringed upon parents’ 14th Amendment rights to direct their children’s upbringing and students’ First Amendment free speech rights.
After the district court’s refusal to grant an injunction, Iowa enacted a law effective July 1, which prohibits school districts from misleading parents about a student’s transgender status.
The appeals court found that some claims against the policy were moot due to this new law.
However, the court acknowledged one anonymous parent’s standing to challenge the “respect” policy under the First Amendment.
One parent, referred to as “Parent G,” contended that her son wishes to express his belief that “biological sex is immutable,” but refrains due to fear of violating the policy.
The school district argued that their policy merely required the use of preferred names and pronouns, and did not limit “general opinions” on gender identity.
But the court dismissed these arguments, indicating the policy’s lack of clarity on what constitutes respect for a student’s gender identity.
It highlighted potential confusion for students on whether expressing discomfort or debating certain aspects of gender identity would be seen as a violation of the policy.
Judge Steven M. Colloton emphasized the policy’s broad prohibition against refusing to “respect a student’s gender identity,” and the absence of a clear definition for ‘respect.’
He illustrated how this ambiguity could potentially penalize students for expressing their opinions on gender-related topics.
The case has been remanded to the district court for further examination, with an injunction issued against the enforcement of the “respect” policy, marking a significant ruling in the ongoing national discourse on gender identity policies in schools.
