11th Circuit Rules Trans Teacher Must Misgender Herself In Classroom In Accordance With FL Law

The ruling by Trump-appointed judges contradicts other classroom speech cases and is a clear case of the state barring disfavored speech, according to the dissent.

Edward Parr Turtle US Court of Appeals Building - Public record

On Wednesday, Trump-appointed judges at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals released a baffling conclusion: that forcing a transgender female teacher to misgender herself in the classroom is somehow not a first amendment violation. This decision stems from a challenge to a Florida law that states it is “false to associate to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person’s sex” and bars teachers from using pronouns or honorifics that “if such preferred personal title or pronouns do not correspond to that person’s sex.” Previously, a federal district judge found that the law was a clear viewpoint discrimination on a personal identity matter for the teacher. Now, according to the dissent, the precedent means that states could control the names and pronouns all teachers use in classrooms, including things like married names and honorifics.

In 2023, Florida enacted House Bill 1069, a significant expansion of the state’s “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” policies. Most notably, the law prohibits teachers from using “a pronoun or personal title” that “does not correspond to such person’s sex.” This provision was enforced against transgender educators, including Ms. Wood, who would be required to go by “Mr. Wood” in the classroom—an act that violates her personal dignity—or risk losing her job.

Ms. Wood brought suit, and in 2024, a federal judge ruled that the law was egregiously discriminatory and violated her First Amendment rights by imposing a viewpoint-based speech restriction. The statute explicitly declares it “false” to use a pronoun that “doesn’t correspond to a person’s sex.” The judge found this to be a clear constitutional violation, ruling that personal titles—such as pronouns and honorifics—are a matter of individual identity, not subject to government control. As such, the law infringed upon Ms. Wood’s protected right to free expression.

The 11th Circuit disagreed. In a ruling handed down by Trump-appointed judges Andrew L. Brasher and Kevin Newsom, the court determined that using one’s pronouns and title in the classroom constitutes “classroom duties” and therefore falls under the control of the state. In essence, the judges ruled that Ms. Wood had no First Amendment rights while performing her job as a teacher, granting Florida the authority to compel her to use whatever pronouns or honorifics the state sees fit—even if they contradict her identity, and that requiring her to do so was not viewpoint discrimination, despite the clear ascribing of such a pronoun or honorific as “false.”

Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee, issued a scathing dissent. “The statute at issue here, § 1000.071(3), has nothing to do with curriculum and everything to do with Florida attempting to silence those with whom it disagrees on the matter of transgender identity and status. Florida cannot justify its viewpoint discrimination by relying on the very reason that such discrimination is constitutionally suspect—that it gets to decide what speech is permissible (the speech it likes) and what speech is prohibited (the speech it disagrees with).”

Judge Jordan also points out troubling implications of the ruling for married people or for those who change their names, stating, “If the majority opinion is right, and I do not think that it is, Florida can require that married female teachers use the last name of their husbands in the classroom even if they have chosen to keep their maiden names (because it declares as a matter of state policy that it does not like female teachers to appear to students to be in-dependent of their husbands); it can demand that unmarried fe-male teachers use “Mrs.” instead of “Ms.” in the classroom (because it declares as a matter of state policy that it wants students to think that their female teachers are all married or should aspire to be married); and it can require all teachers to call themselves “Teacher Smith” in the classroom instead of using their actual last names (because it declares as a matter of state policy that any pedagogic individuality is bad). If these possibilities sound ‘First Amendment crazy,’ it is because they are.”

Lastly, Judge Jordan points out the clear contradiction on free speech policy when it comes to transgender people. In another ruling in the 6th Circuit, teachers were ruled to have the freedom of speech to misgender their transgender students. Meanwhile, in the 11th Circuit, teachers now apparently have no free speech rights in the classroom. Therefore, caselaw is building that seems to suggest teachers only have free speech when they disagree with transgender people, but as soon as transgender people come into play, they lose those rights - even in intensely personal subjects such as what name or pronoun or honorific one uses.

He cautions the 11th. Circuit of the implication of the precedent they created on this topic: “We should be wary of holding that everything that happens in a classroom constitutes government speech outside the ambit of the First Amendment. Those who wield the power of the government today and are on one side of the gender and culture wars will be the ones at risk of being compelled to speak against their beliefs, or silenced, when their opponents are in charge. Today’s opinion will then not look as attractive.”

The case now returns to the district court, but in the meanwhile, transgender teachers in Florida are forced to misgender themselves in their own classrooms—a direct assault on their basic dignity and identity. The ruling marks yet another escalation in Florida’s increasingly authoritarian campaign against transgender people. In a country that claims to value free speech and personal liberty, this ruling lays bare just how conditional those rights have become when it comes to transgender people.