A federal judge has temporarily limited the University of California’s ability to discipline some students for intentionally using birth names or pronouns that do not match a transgender person’s gender identity.
But the ruling is considerably narrower than declaring intentional misgendering protected in every circumstance.
U.S. District Judge Fred W. Slaughter granted part of a preliminary injunction sought by Defending Education, an advocacy organization challenging the University of California’s Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment policy on First Amendment grounds.
The injunction prevents UC officials from enforcing the challenged policy against members of Defending Education when they use a transgender person’s birth name or pronouns associated with that person’s sex assigned at birth in what the court described as a “commonplace way.”
At the same time, Slaughter explicitly left UC free to enforce its harassment rules when treatment of transgender students crosses into abuse.
What the UC misgendering policy said
The dispute centers on UC’s systemwide Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment policy and accompanying guidance explaining how harassment based on gender identity can violate university rules.
An earlier version of the university’s guidance said prohibited conduct included the “intentional or repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity.”
The policy gave the example of a transgender man who is intentionally and repeatedly called by his former name or addressed as “Miss” or “Ms.” by a professor in a mocking manner.
UC later revised that language.
The amended guidance says intentional and repeated misgendering may violate university policy when the conduct is unwelcome, a reasonable person would consider it intimidating or harassing, and it otherwise meets UC’s definition of hostile-environment harassment.
That distinction became important in court because UC argued that its policy targeted harassment, not ordinary speech or isolated disagreements over pronouns.
Defending Education challenged the policy.
Defending Education filed the lawsuit in June on behalf of members attending University of California campuses.
More Stories from QueerDispatch
According to declarations submitted in the case, those students believe sex is immutable and want to use names and pronouns corresponding to a person’s sex assigned at birth, including when transgender classmates use different names or pronouns.
They argued that UC’s rules forced them either to use language that communicates a belief they reject or to censor themselves to avoid possible discipline.
Defending Education argued that this amounted to viewpoint discrimination and compelled speech, violating the First Amendment.
The judge found a likely First Amendment problem.
Slaughter agreed that Defending Education had a strong chance of succeeding on at least part of its First Amendment challenge.
The judge relied in part on recent appellate rulings involving government requirements surrounding names, pronouns, and gender identity.
One was Bates v. Pakseresht, a Ninth Circuit case involving Oregon’s requirements for prospective adoptive parents. The appeals court concluded that forcing an applicant to affirm certain beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity, including through pronoun use, implicated constitutional protections against compelled speech.
Slaughter also pointed to Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, in which the Sixth Circuit ordered protections for students who wanted to use pronouns associated with classmates’ sex assigned at birth despite a school district’s anti-harassment policies.
Those decisions do not mean every act of misgendering is constitutionally protected. Instead, they led the judge to conclude that UC could not treat the ordinary use of disfavored pronouns as punishable simply because of the viewpoint those words may communicate.
The injunction is much narrower than Defending Education requested
Defending Education sought broader protection from UC’s harassment policies.
Slaughter did not give the organization everything it asked for.
Instead, the injunction applies specifically to Defending Education members. Specifically, it protects the “commonplace” use of birth names or pronouns associated with sex assigned at birth when those names or pronouns conflict with another person’s gender identity.
The order then draws another boundary.
“It shall not be a violation of this Order” for UC to enforce its policy “to prevent the abuse of transgender students, just as they enforce the policy to prevent the abuse of all other students.”
That language matters.
The ruling does not create a blanket constitutional right to target, threaten, or abuse transgender students. Nor does it invalidate UC’s broader protections against gender-identity-based harassment.
Instead, it limits where the university may draw the line between protected speech and punishable harassment while the lawsuit continues.
This is not a final ruling.
A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment that UC’s policy is unconstitutional.
Courts issue preliminary injunctions while litigation continues when a plaintiff meets several requirements, including showing a likelihood of succeeding on the merits and a risk of irreparable harm without temporary relief.
The underlying lawsuit remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The case is Defending Education v. Anguiano, No. 8:26-cv-01574.
Why It Matters
The case sits directly on an increasingly contested boundary between First Amendment protections and a university’s responsibility to address discriminatory harassment.
That boundary becomes particularly difficult when the speech at issue is directed at an individual rather than expressed only as part of a broader political or academic debate.
A person discussing whether gender identity should be recognized in public policy presents one kind of First Amendment question.
A student repeatedly directing a transgender classmate’s former name at them after being asked to stop may present another.
Slaughter’s preliminary injunction does not fully resolve where that line sits.
For now, it prevents UC from disciplining Defending Education members merely for the commonplace use of birth names or pronouns associated with sex assigned at birth, while preserving the university’s authority to intervene when conduct becomes abusive.
How courts ultimately distinguish protected expression from targeted harassment could reach well beyond the University of California.
Read More
- Trump Administration Investigates Massachusetts School Over Trans Student — But Key Facts Are Disputed
- The Education Department Collected Data on Trans Students. Then It Hid It.
- Federal Judge Again Strikes Down Texas Drag Ban
- Hungary Moves to Undo Anti-LGBTQ+ ‘Propaganda’ Rules as Turkey Detains 150 Protesters