The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily bars the University of California (UC) system from disciplining members of the conservative advocacy group Defending Education for using names or pronouns that align with a person’s sex assigned at birth rather than their gender identity. Judge Fred W. Slaughter concluded that the university’s anti-harassment policy, which treats misgendering as a form of harassment, likely infringes the First Amendment by compelling speech and favoring a particular viewpoint. The order applies only while the underlying lawsuit proceeds, but it represents a notable victory for free-speech proponents in the ongoing clash over transgender rights on campuses.
Scope of the injunction and what it protects
The injunction specifically shields Defending Education’s members from being penalized for what the court described as a “commonplace” use of birth-assigned names or pronouns. It does not, however, give a free pass to overt harassment. Judge Slaughter warned that the protection ends when language crosses the line into abusive conduct, such as repeatedly calling a transgender student a derogatory nickname or using a name in a mocking manner. The order leaves the university free to pursue disciplinary action when conduct meets the policy’s definition of a hostile environment, which requires the behavior to be unwelcome, severe, and objectively intimidating.
University of California’s policy and institutional response
UC’s Sexual Violence and Harassment Policy defines misgendering as the intentional or repeated use of a name or pronoun that does not correspond with an individual’s gender identity. The policy’s FAQ previously gave explicit examples—such as calling a transgender man by his dead name or a professor repeatedly using “Miss” for a trans-male student—as prohibited conduct. After the lawsuit was filed, the university revised the FAQ to add an “objective harassment” standard, but the core prohibition remains. UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz emphasized that the policy aims to protect the community from discrimination, not to police protected speech, and affirmed the university’s commitment to both a welcoming environment and constitutional rights.
Broader legal landscape and potential implications
This ruling arrives amid a wave of litigation targeting transgender-inclusive policies in California and across the nation. Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s challenge to school sports rules that allow transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity. In a separate case, a San Bernardino County judge ruled that schools cannot be compelled to “out” students while still having to answer parental inquiries. Legal scholars note that the UC decision could set a precedent for how universities balance anti-harassment mandates with free-speech guarantees, especially as courts examine whether policies that compel the use of specific pronouns constitute viewpoint-based regulation.
Defending Education, the sole plaintiff in the case, plans to continue fighting the policy in California and potentially elsewhere, arguing that public universities cannot force students to adopt language that conflicts with their sincerely held beliefs. The organization’s president, Nicole Neily, hailed the injunction as a safeguard against “coercive speech.” Meanwhile, UC reports that roughly 2.2% of its 301,000 students identify as transgender or non-binary, highlighting the real-world impact of the policy on a significant number of campus members.
While the temporary order does not dismantle UC’s entire anti-harassment framework, it underscores the judicial scrutiny being applied to policies that intersect with identity and expression. As the case moves toward a final ruling, both sides are poised to present arguments about the limits of institutional authority, the definition of harassment, and the extent of constitutional protection for speech on public university campuses.
