Institute For Free Speech

Free Speech Arguments

Presented by the Institute for Free Speech

The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country. Find us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Episode 26: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, et al.

Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 19, 2025. Argued by Cameron Norris (on behalf of Parents Defending Education); Elliott Gaiser, Solicitor General of Ohio (on behalf of Ohio and 22 other states as amici curiae); and Jaime Santos (on behalf of the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, et al.).

Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech’s second amicus brief (in support of reversal):

While students may freely identify as having genders that do not correspond to their biological sex, other students enjoy the same right to credit their own perceptions of reality—and to speak their minds when addressing their classmates. Students cannot be compelled to speak in a manner that confesses, accommodates, and conforms to an ideology they reject—even if that ideology’s adherents are offended by any refusal to agree with them or endorse their viewpoint. Yet that is what the Olentangy school district’s speech code does.

“Pronouns are political.” Dennis Baron, What’s Your Pronoun? 39 (2020). History shows that people have long used pronouns to express messages about society and its structure—often in rebellion against the prevailing ideology. And the same is true today. Choosing to use “preferred” or “non-preferred” pronouns often “advance[s] a viewpoint on gender identity.” Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 509 (6th Cir. 2021). So mandating that students use “preferred” pronouns or none at all elevates one viewpoint while silencing the other. It compels students to adopt the district’s ideology on gender identity while at school, and in doing so, “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).

Statement of the Issues, from the Brief of Appellant Parents Defending Education:

The use of gender-specific pronouns is a “hot issue” that “has produced a passionate political and social debate” across the country. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 508-09 (6th Cir. 2021). One side believes that gender is subjective and so people should use others’ “preferred pronouns”; the other side believes that sex is immutable and so people should use pronouns that correspond with biological sex. Id. at 498. Like the general public, students have varying views on this important subject, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Yet the Olentangy Local School District has adopted policies that punish speech expressed by one side of the debate—the use of pronouns that are contrary to another student’s identity. The district court upheld the Policies as consistent with the First Amendment and denied PDE’s preliminary-injunction motion.

The issues presented in this appeal are:

  1. Whether the District’s speech policies likely violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, discriminate based on viewpoint, prohibit speech based on content without evidence of a substantial disruption, or are overbroad.
  2. Whether, if PDE is likely to succeed on the merits, the remaining preliminary-injunction criteria favor issuing a preliminary injunction.

Resources:

Listen to the argument here:

     

Episode 25: Powell, et al. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 24: Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on January 15, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 23: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 15, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 22: TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 10, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 21: Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, consolidated under AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on October 30, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 20: Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al. v. Wilson County Board of Education, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 29, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 19: Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 9, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 18: Little, et al. v. Llano County, et al., argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 24, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 17: TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 16, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 16: NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 17, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 15: X Corp. v. Bonta, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 17, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 14: The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 4, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 13: Can You Be Punished for Sharing Publicly Broadcast Court Hearings (Somberg v. McDonald), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 12, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 12: Florida’s STOP Woke Act in Higher Education (Pernell v. Lamb), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on June 14, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 11: National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc on June 12, 2024. 
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 10: U.S. v. Sittenfeld, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 9, 2024
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 9: Diei v. Boyd, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 2, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 8: Spectrum WT v. Wendler, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 29, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 7: Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 16, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 6: U.S. v. Mackey, argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 5, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 5: Gilliam v. Gerregano, argued before the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 3, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 4: Gonzalez v. Trevino, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 20, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 3: Murthy v. Missouri, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 2: NRA v. Vullo, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:  

Episode 1: Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024
Listen to the argument here:  

Get the Latest Updates

© 2025 Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-301-3300

The word mark Institute for Free Speech® and its logo of a stylized lantern with a flame are federally registered service marks and are owned by the Institute for Free Speech.