Olentangy Local School District had policies prohibiting discriminatory harassment, including harassment based on gender identity. Parents and students represented by Defending Education argued that the policies would punish students who, for religious or other reasons, used pronouns matching a classmate’s biological sex rather than that classmate’s preferred pronouns.

The Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled that the challengers were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim. The majority viewed the policy as both restricting one message and pressuring students to express a competing message. Applying Tinker, it concluded that the district had not shown enough evidence at this stage that ordinary use of biological pronouns would materially disrupt school or amount to legally actionable harassment.

The court stressed that its ruling did not prevent schools from enforcing anti-harassment rules against bullying or abuse of transgender students. The decision concerned ordinary pronoun use and was issued at the preliminary-injunction stage, not after a final trial on all facts.

Why it matters: Olentangy is an important modern student-speech case about the line between protecting students from harassment and compelling or restricting speech on disputed social issues. It also shows that viewpoint neutrality remains important even when schools are pursuing anti-bullying goals.