Forced Pronouns Ruling SHAKES Public Schools

A federal appeals court just handed public schools in five states a road map to treat a teacher’s words in the classroom as government-controlled speech—even when faith and conscience are on the line.

Quick Take

The 4th Circuit ruled 2-1 that Montgomery County Public Schools’ pronoun policy for staff does not violate a substitute teacher’s First Amendment free speech or religious freedom rights.
The majority leaned heavily on the idea that classroom speech by public employees is part of their “official duties,” giving school boards wide authority to set rules.
Dissenting Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III warned the ruling pushes courts toward compelled speech and could be weaponized in future culture-war policy swings.
The policy allows students to use names and pronouns aligned with a consistently asserted gender identity at school without legal documentation and includes confidentiality expectations.
The teacher’s legal team said further review is being considered, including an en banc appeal or a Supreme Court petition.

What the 4th Circuit Actually Decided—and Why It Matters

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on January 28, 2026, upheld Montgomery County Public Schools’ requirement that teachers use students’ preferred names and pronouns tied to gender identity. The 2-1 decision affirmed a lower-court dismissal of substitute teacher Kimberly Polk’s core constitutional claims, holding the policy did not violate her free speech or religious exercise rights. The ruling applies across the 4th Circuit’s footprint: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

Judge Robert B. King wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Stephanie D. Thacker, stressing that the school system’s rules govern how staff perform their jobs. The opinion emphasized that Polk was not “forced” into the role and could pursue change through “democratic means” rather than litigation. That framing matters because it places a teacher’s classroom language inside the employer’s control—an approach that tends to narrow First Amendment protections for public employees while on duty.

How the Policy Works Inside Montgomery County Schools

Montgomery County’s guidance is part of broader LGBTQIA+ support resources and instructs staff to address students using names and pronouns that reflect a consistently asserted gender identity at school. The policy does not require a legal name change or amended documents before a student is treated that way in school settings. It also includes confidentiality expectations, meaning school staff may be expected to keep a student’s asserted identity private in certain circumstances—an issue that has fueled disputes over parental involvement and transparency.

Polk, a Christian substitute teacher who began working in the district in 2021, said using preferred pronouns would violate her religious beliefs and amount to affirming something she viewed as untrue about biological sex. Reporting on the dispute describes her concern as both moral and practical—objecting to what she regarded as “lying” and warning about deceiving parents. The timeline shows she sought a religious accommodation in November 2022, with proposals discussed in early 2023, before the conflict moved into federal court.

The Accommodation Fight and the “Official Duties” Theory

School officials explored possible accommodations, including assigning Polk only to preschool and elementary schools, according to accounts of the negotiations. The district ultimately did not grant the accommodation Polk sought, and she refused to sign an agreement requiring adherence to the guidelines. She sued in May 2024 in U.S. District Court in Maryland. In January 2025, U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman dismissed most claims and denied a preliminary injunction, while allowing one statutory civil rights claim to proceed into discovery.

The appellate majority’s reasoning tracks a familiar legal line: courts often treat what a public employee says as part of the job as speech the government can regulate. In plain terms, if a school board defines how teachers must address students as part of classroom management, judges may view that as employer policy rather than forced personal endorsement. For conservatives who worry about compelled ideology, the key tension is that the decision draws a boundary that can leave employees with limited constitutional leverage when the contested message is embedded in job requirements.

The Dissent’s Warning: Compelled Speech Cuts Both Ways

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III dissented, warning the court was stepping onto what he described as a “dangerous precipice” involving compelled speech. The dissent’s practical point is that once courts normalize compelled language in classrooms, future school boards—left or right—may try to mandate speech that advances a political or cultural agenda. That warning resonated beyond this single dispute because the precedent could be invoked in other fights over curriculum, language, and how institutions define “inclusion.”

Even with the appellate loss, the case is not necessarily finished. As of early February 2026, Polk’s attorney, Rick Claybrook, said options were being weighed, including asking the full 4th Circuit to rehear the case or seeking review at the U.S. Supreme Court. Montgomery County Public Schools welcomed the ruling but limited comment due to ongoing litigation. Meanwhile, the surviving statutory claim at the district court remains a procedural thread, though further appeals could reshape what happens next.

Limited public information is available on whether additional appeals have been filed beyond discussions reported in early February. What is clear from the ruling and the record described in coverage is that this dispute is now a major test of how far “official duties” can be stretched in K–12 settings. For families and taxpayers who want schools focused on academics, this case underscores how quickly classrooms become battlegrounds—and how decisively federal courts can tilt power toward bureaucratic policy over individual conscience.