A federal judge has temporarily blocked the University of California from enforcing parts of its transgender harassment policy against members of a conservative education group, finding they are likely to succeed on claims that the rules violate the First Amendment.
US District Judge Fred W. Slaughter issued a preliminary injunction preventing UC from punishing members of Defending Education for using, “in a commonplace way,” names or pronouns corresponding with a transgender person’s sex assigned at birth rather than their gender identity, per the Los Angeles Times.
The ruling does not completely strike down UC’s Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy and only protects members of Defending Education while the group’s lawsuit against the university system moves forward.
But Slaughter found the organization was likely to prevail on its First Amendment challenge, writing that UC’s policy “compels speech and is viewpoint-based,” according to the outlet.
At the center of the legal showdown is a policy applying to students, faculty, staff and certain third parties that identifies the “intentional or repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity” as conduct that may constitute harassment.
Defending Education sued UC colleges in June, arguing the policy is so broad that students fear punishment simply for expressing their beliefs about biological sex and gender identity.
The group’s complaint also alleges the rules can extend beyond conversations on campus to online communications and text messages, while university employees are required to report suspected violations.
Defending Education further argued violations can carry serious consequences under UC disciplinary rules, potentially including suspension or expulsion, restrictions from campus activities or locations and in some circumstances, revocation of academic degrees.
“These students want to engage in speech covered by the SVSH Policy, but they credibly fear that the expression of their deeply held views will lead to punishment,” the group argued in its lawsuit.
Four student members submitted declarations supporting the challenge, although they are not individually plaintiffs.
One UCLA senior claimed the policy forced her to “self censor” because using pronouns inconsistent with a person’s sex assigned at birth would conflict with her religious beliefs, according to the complaint.
A UC Irvine student identified as “Student D” described encountering the issue in everyday campus life.
“I am often in classes or small groups with people who identify as transgender and have to work hard to avoid pronouns or names in those situations,” the student said in a declaration quoted in the group’s court filing.
Defending Education President Nicole Neily celebrated the injunction as a blow against what she called a “coercive speech policy.”
“It is unconstitutional for public universities to compel student speech, and we will continue to defend this principle in California and other schools across the country as needed,” Neily told the LA Times.
UC maintains that the policy is aimed at stopping discrimination and harassment, not policing constitutionally protected speech.
University spokesperson Rachel Zaentz said the rules are “designed to protect members of the university community from discrimination and harassment, not to regulate protected speech.”
“While we disagree with the court’s ruling, UC will always seek to foster a welcoming environment that protects both freedom of expression and the fundamental rights of all members of our community,” Zaentz said in a statement to the outlet.
The injunction also does not prevent UC from enforcing its rules against abusive gender-based harassment.
Slaughter cited the hypothetical example of a bully calling a boy “little princess” or “baby girl” as conduct the university could potentially regulate.
The ruling is preliminary and does not finally decide whether UC’s policy is unconstitutional. The underlying federal lawsuit will continue.
