free speech

YAF Sues University of Minnesota Over Forced ‘Transgender’ Speech Codes

Young America’s Foundation (YAF) filed a lawsuit against the University of Minnesota (UMN) over policies that keep students from questioning “transgender” ideology and force them to use transgender-identified individual’s “chosen pronouns” – rather than language that reflects biological reality.

YAF is the parent organization of Young Americans for Freedom, which has chapters on 213 college and university campuses, as well as 228 high school groups. The conservative non-profit has a mission to ensure “that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values.”

Traditional values include, the complaint states, truths like:

  • Men should not compete in women’s sports or use their bathrooms.
  • There are only two genders.
  • Sex is immutable.
  • Sex is immutable.
  • A man cannot get pregnant.
  • A man cannot become a woman, and a woman cannot become a man.

But UMN policies keep students afraid to discuss these issues and invite YAF speakers – like Ryan T. Anderson, Chloe Cole, Seth Dillon and Ben Shapiro – who oppose transgender dogma and indoctrination.

Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) filed the lawsuit June 19 on YAF’s behalf, explaining in a press release that policies which only allow students to agree with and express gender ideology violate students’ First Amendment rights.

The complaint points to UMN sexual harassment and discrimination policies that require agreement with transgender ideology and language. Anyone who feels “offended” by a YAF members’ speech can file a formal or anonymous complaint – which could lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal from the university.

In addition, the university policy “Equity and Access: Gender Identity, Gender Expression, Names and Pronouns,” states:

University members may, without being required to provide documentation: use a chosen name that differs from the name listed on their legal documents, use a gender identity that differs from their legal sex and/or sex assigned at birth, and/or specify the pronouns and other gendered personal references (e.g., Ms., Mx., Mr.) used to refer to them.

The rule goes on to state requirements for all students, staff, faculty, guests, contractors and volunteers:

University members and units are expected to use the names, gender identities, and pronouns specified to them by other University members, except as legally required. … University members and units are also expected to use other gendered personal references, if any, that are consistent with the gender identities and pronouns specified by University members.

The “Equity and Access” policy gives this definition of gender identity, which is a completely subjective societal and individual construct:

An individual’s own understanding of themselves in terms of gendered categories that may include female, male, transgender, genderqueer, genderfluid, gender nonconforming, Two Spirit, intersex, non-binary, agender, genderless, and many others. Gender identity cannot be reliably determined by looking at an individual. An individual’s gender identity may be consistent over their lifetime or may shift over time.

Evidently there’s equity or access for everyone at UMN – except for those who believe biblical and scientific truth about sex and sexual identity.

SLF President Kim Hermann said of the policies:

These students have to walk on eggshells while engaging with these topics, making sure to not voice opinions different from that of the school, or not use biologically correct pronouns of people, in fear of school disciplinary actions. It sounds to me like the school wants to be a safe place for some students but not all.

The nonprofit legal group, which works to protect constitutional rights, stated:

While the University attempts to justify the policies by saying that speech expressing traditional views based in biology on gender identity offends its hearers, the First Amendment does not allow universities, of all places, to restrict student speech just because someone may not agree or like it.

SLF and YAF argue that these policies are pure viewpoint discrimination, where students are afraid to speak about their views publicly, in fear that they will face severe discipline from the school.

YAF President Governor Scott Walker commented on the lawsuit, saying:

The fact that there are any universities in the US attempting to suppress certain views that they deem wrong is a complete outrage. While students at the University of Minnesota should just have to worry about their classwork, they now also have to worry about violating these policies that are infringing on their rights to speak freely. Not only is this unfair to students, and particularly conservative students, but it’s completely unconstitutional.

The Daily Citizen hopes Young America’s Foundation is successful with returning free speech and academic debate to the University of Minnesota.

Related articles and resources:

Chloe Cole: Transgender Surgery Regret

God’s Amazing Grace in a Transgendered Person’s Life

The Journey Back to My True Identity

Oregon School District Pays $650,000 for Firing Teachers Opposed to ‘Trans’ Policy

Teacher Wins $650,000 After Being Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Trans’ Pronouns

Teacher Wrongly Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Preferred Pronouns’ Wins $575,000

Transgender Resources

Free Speech Victory for Virginia Teacher Fired Over ‘Transgender’ Pronoun Policy

NC School District Pays $95K After Censoring Charlie Kirk Tribute

A North Carolina school district will pay $95,000 for censoring a student’s Bible-based tribute to Charlie Kirk, violating her constitutional rights.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) brought a lawsuit against the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education after it suppressed the speech of an unnamed student (identified as G.S. in the lawsuit).

The student, a junior at Ardrey Kell High School, is a Christian who seeks to share her faith with others. After Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, the student received permission to paint a message on her school’s “spirit rock” in support of Kirk’s message.

She had seen many other messages on the rock – from text supporting NFL teams to Black Lives Matter. The student, along with her parents and two friends, painted the rock with the words “Freedom 1776” and “Live Like Kirk – John 11:25.”

Within hours, school officials abruptly changed their minds and painted over the messages. School officials then publicly accused G.S. of “vandalism” – even though they had approved the student’s message – and announced they had contacted law enforcement and were cooperating with the criminal investigation. That’s right, school officials asked police to investigate a “crime” they had approved!

Conduct like this is shocking, but perhaps unsurprising, especially since a former member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education used Kirk’s assassination as an attempt to besmirch his character.

At the time, board member Melissa Easley posted publicly on social media: “Do not expect me to feel sorry, pitty [sic] or mournful for the man that has gone around saying I or my spouse are abominations.”

School officials also issued a new speech code for the spirit rock, restricting student messages that were “political” or “religious” in nature.

After the school board’s anti-free speech, public shaming campaign was over, attorneys with ADF filed a lawsuit on behalf of the student and her parents, demanding the restoration of her constitutional rights.

“What happened to this student is outrageous. School officials should never censor, punish, or shame a student simply for sharing her views,” said ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham.

“Charlie Kirk boldly defended open and respectful discourse on school grounds literally until his last breath, and this courage inspired many across the country, including our client, whom Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools officials treated so abominably.”

To settle the lawsuit, the school board has agreed to adopt a new student speech policy rescinding its previous guidance, exonerate the student and pay $95,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.

Barham added,

It is long past time for school officials to learn that they cannot promote student viewpoints they like while punishing students whose views they dislike. We hope the new policy prevents school officials from subjecting any other students to the abuse our client experienced and will instead force them to respect every student’s constitutional rights.

Perhaps one day far-left school districts will learn their lesson: Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.

For now, it’s up to courageous and brave students like G.S. to unapologetically share their faith, speak the truth and be ready to seek help when their First Amendment rights are violated.

The case is G.S. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

Related articles and resources:

Speaking Peace into Chaos in a Troubled Culture

Oregon School District Pays $650,000 for Firing Teachers Opposed to ‘Trans’ Policy

What is Free Speech?

Photo from Getty Images.

A Young Poet’s Pro-Life Voice is Censored — But Her Poem Goes Viral Online

A misapplied liberal bumper sticker has it that “Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History.” It is never applied to strong Christian women being faithful to what God has called them to. But that is precisely what academic historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was referring to when she penned this quote in a scholarly 1976 journal article.

Ulrich was describing the highly devout Puritan woman of the American colonies.

There is a faithful Christian lass in Jefferson County, Colorado who is actually making history for being silenced by her liberally minded Drake Middle School teacher and school administrators. The Daily Citizen does not know this 13-year-old girl’s name, but we are deeply moved by her brilliance, conviction and passion.

Her seventh-grade class was assigned to write a slam poem about, as she explained, “a conflict in the world that we are passionate about.” She chose to write about life because choosing life is a very important part of her family’s story. Neither she nor her mother would exist if her grandmother had not bravely and selflessly chosen life when she found herself pregnant at the tender age of 14. But she did, and they are all thankful.

Yet, her teacher told her she could not present her poem before the class, even though she carefully met all the criteria outlined by the assignment. It was the topic, and her voice, that was muzzled. The mom explained she was told “because of the offensive material in the poem, that they were not going to allow her to present.” 

You can hear this creative poem and judge for yourself if it is offensive and deserving of being banned. It starts with a famous quote from Dr. Suess, “A life is a life, no matter how small.”

It is a lovely, thoughtful piece of work. What a remarkable girl!

But this girl and her mom were told it was “too political.”

The mother rightfully pushed back on the teacher, explaining many other students’ poems presented controversial material like racial politics, LGBT issues, and immigration, but to no resolve.

Yet, it gets worse.

When this mindful girl asked her teacher why she would not be able to present her poem, her teacher told her she would not even be able to be present in the classroom while other students read their own poems. She would have to sit outside. Unlike Rosa Parks who was unjustly asked to move to the back of the bus, this girl was asked to step off the bus.

This young teen bravely pressed the matter and the teacher relented, allowing her to be in the class with her fellow students to hear them recite their poems.

Of her own crisis-laden conception, in which her mother bravely chose life, the student’s mother beautifully explained, “There is hope in hard situations. There is purpose in pain. And good things come out of situations that seem bleak and my family is proof of that.”

Thank God for such beautiful strong female voices speaking truth amid a culture of death. Shame on the Jefferson County, Colorado, school officials for illiberally muting this spirited and intelligent girl’s talented pro-life voice. 

JeffCO Public Schools can be contacted at the following:

JeffCO Public Schools / 1829 Denver West Drive #27 / Golden, Colorado 80401
Phone: 303-982-6500

Indiana School Counselor Wins Free Speech Victory Over District’s ‘Gender’ Policy

An Indiana school district agreed to pay $195,000 to settle with a school counselor who was fired for speaking to a journalist about the district policy of hiding students “gender identity” from parents.

The case involved Kathy McCord, a 37-year education veteran who objected to the school’s mandate “which required her to speak in ways that violate her sincerely held religious beliefs,” reported Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

The Christian legal aid group brought the lawsuit against the South Madison Community School Corporation, in Pendleton, Indiana, on her behalf.

The settlement for damages, attorneys’ fees and costs is one of many recent transgender–related cases where school districts have been forced to pay up for violating school employees’ First Amendment rights. ADF has been instrumental in many of these victories.

ADF explained that South Madison developed a Gender Support Plan in the fall of 2021 to deal with the then–growing fad of students identifying as something other than their biological sex.

ADF said the plan “required counselors and other employees to use, upon a student’s request, names and pronouns for the student that do not correspond with his or her sex – without notifying parents or seeking parental consent.”

An anonymous source sent The Daily Signal a copy of the Gender Support Plan, and reporter Tim Kinnett contacted McCord. McCord called the reporter back and answered questions about the school’s transgender policy. Kinnett explained in his December 2022 article:

McCord said she and other counselors have access to such plans, but teachers, parents, and the public do not – which she strongly disagrees with. McCord insisted that she and a few other counselors despise this district policy, describing it as both dishonest and harmful.

Kinnett added:

The South Madison district requires only that the student say that his or her parents don’t or wouldn’t approve, and the district is obliged to hide the information from parents.

The article caused great concern in the district; angry parents attended school board meetings and spoke out against the policy. Board members were also upset because they had not approved this policy – even though school administrators told teachers and staff otherwise.

Shortly thereafter, South Madison investigated McCord and fired her.

The school accused her of leaking the email and Gender Support Plan to the journalist, which she denied. According to ADF’s lawsuit, the school did not even investigate whether this accusation was true.

That’s when McCord fought back. Her lawsuit detailed the facts of the case:

  • South Madison changed students’ names and pronouns without parental notification or consent.
  • The school directed employees to stop contacting parents when children identified as something other than their birth sex.
  • South Madison trained employees according to its new gender policies.
  • McCord was fired for exercising her free speech by speaking to The Daily Signal’s reporter.

Since McCord filed her lawsuit, Indiana has passed a law keeping school staff or outside parties from talking with kindergarten through 3rd grade children about human sexuality. The law also prohibited policies like South Madison’s that kept parents in the dark about their child’s sexual identity confusion.

The law also required parental notification if a student requested a name or pronoun change.

But it came too late for McCord; she’d already been fired.

Although the settlement brings this lawsuit to an end, Defending Education reports that more than 1,200 school districts have “Transgender/Gender Nonconforming Policies” similar to South Madison’s, covering 12.3 million students.

Radical activist groups, such as the ACLU, Gender Spectrum, the National Education Association, GLSEN, and the National Center for Transgender Equality, developed “model transgender policies” which have been adapted by districts across the country.

One such plan, “Schools in Transition,” has an entire chapter telling schools how to deal with “unsupportive parents.” The guide portrays parents as an enemy of their child and places “student privacy” above parent’s rights:

Privacy and confidentiality are critically important for transgender students who do not have supportive families. In those situations, even inadvertent disclosures could put the student in a potentially dangerous situation at home, so it is important to have a plan in place to help avoid any mistakes or slip-ups.

Another “Model School District Policy on Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students,” states:

School staff shall not disclose any information that may reveal a student’s transgender status to others, including parents or guardians and other school staff, unless legally required to do so or unless the student has authorized such disclosure.

Teachers and parents have won a number of legal battles against these unconstitutional threats to free speech, parental rights and religious freedom – including a recent Supreme Court decision. But many states, school districts and local schools still promote transgender ideology and try to hide information from parents, so it’s important for parents to stay informed about what’s happening in their children’s schools.

The case is: McCord v. South Madison Community School Corporation.

Focus on the Family’s “Equipping Parents for Back-to-School” helps you be aware of what’s happening in the classroom and empowers you to advocate for your child in school. The free, downloadable resource offers insights about exercising school choice and protecting children’s free speech and religious liberty.

Related articles and resources:

Barrett v. Kagan: Key Takeaways From Supreme Court Ruling on ‘Transgender’ School Policies

BREAKING: Big Wins for Free Speech and Religious Freedom in California

BREAKING: Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Says California School District Cannot Force Teachers to Lie to Parents About Their Children’s ‘Gender Identity’

California Teachers Told to Hide Information About Students’ ‘Gender’ From Parents – They’re Suing

California Schools May Not Hide Students’ ‘Gender Identity’ From Parents

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

Exclusive Interview: Colorado Parents Expose ‘Gender Cult’ at Public School in New Documentary

Florida Parents Sue School for Helping Teen ‘Transition’ – Without Their Knowledge or Consent

Ohio School District Violated Teacher’s Rights in ‘Transgender’ Case

Teacher Wins $650,000 After Being Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Trans’ Pronouns

Teacher Wrongly Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Preferred Pronouns’ Wins $575,000

Transgender Resources

Victory: CA School District Agrees to Notify Parents Before Teaching Gender Ideology

What’s Your School District’s ‘Transgender’ Policy?

Photo credit: Xavier Lorenzo/Shutterstock

Supreme Court Rules Street Preacher Can Challenge City’s Speech Ordinance

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a street preacher who argues a city ordinance unconstitutionally prevents him from sharing his Christian faith in public.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Olivier v. City of Brandon that Gabriel Olivier can challenge Brandon, Mississippi’s ordinance that restricts “expressive activity” – and therefore, Olivier’s evangelism – near a public amphitheater.

“This is not only a win for the right to share your faith in public, but also a win for every American’s right to have their day in court when their First Amendment rights are violated,” said Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute. Olivier is represented by First Liberty.

Olivier, an evangelical Christian, often stands outside of well-attended events and shares the gospel with as many people as he can. But the city of Brandon, Mississippi, adopted an ordinance that limits speech inside a small, designated “protest zone” that is far away from crowds, limiting his ability to communicate.

In one incident, Olivier disregarded the protest zone and moved closer to the crowds so he could reach more people. As a result, the city arrested him. He paid a $304 fine and was released, serving no prison time.

First Liberty published a video explaining more about Olivier’s story, which you can watch below:


Olivier subsequently challenged the law in federal court, alleging the city ordinance violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The district court, however, dismissed his case. The court agreed with the city’s argument that an individual previously convicted of violating a statute cannot challenge its constitutionality under federal civil rights law (§1983).

It relied on a Supreme Court decision in Heck v. Humphery that prohibits prisoners’ use of §1983 to challenge the validity of a prior conviction to obtain release from custody or monetary damages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgement.

In its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling and allowed Olivier’s suit challenging the city ordinance to proceed. The Court said its Heck precedent “has no bearing on Olivier’s suit seeking a purely prospective remedy.”

Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the Court’s opinion, said, “Olivier is seeking … ‘wholly prospective’ relief – ‘only to be free from prosecutions for future violations’ of the city ordinance.”

Olivier can “sue … to enjoin future prosecutions under the city ordinance, despite his prior conviction,” Kagan said. Otherwise, Olivier would be placed in a “dilemma” to either “flout the law and risk another prosecution, or else forego speech he believes is constitutionally protected.”

Olivier’s case will now go to trial in the district court where he will argue the ordinance violates the free speech clause.

“No American should be criminally charged for sharing their faith in public,” said Nate Kellum, senior counsel at First Liberty. “This is a wonderful day for Gabe and for the First Amendment.”

“My goal from the beginning was to be granted my rights as an American citizen under our great Constitution,” said Olivier. “Now all people with deeply held Christian religious beliefs who are called to share the good news can do so in the public arena.”

The case is Olivier v. City of Brandon.

Related articles and resources:

Supreme Court To Hear Evangelist’s Religious Freedom Case

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Case of Evangelist Banned From Sharing His Faith

Photo from Shutterstock.