A federal appeals court has ruled that a Florida high school math teacher cannot compel students or coworkers to use pronouns and titles that differ from the teacher’s biological sex.

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a state law that bars public school employees from using or enforcing the use of pronouns or honorifics that do not align with their sex assigned at birth, The Christian Post reported.

The case centered on Katie Wood, a Florida high school teacher who was born male but identifies as a woman. Wood had asked colleagues and students to address her using female pronouns and the title “Ms.” The school district declined, citing the state’s 2023 statute prohibiting such practices in public K–12 schools.

Court Ruling Reinforces State’s 2023 Statute

The court's 2–1 decision affirms the constitutionality of Florida Statute § 1000.071, which makes it illegal for any public school educator to communicate preferred names or pronouns that contradict their biological sex to students. The majority opinion was authored by Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, who was nominated to the bench by former President Donald Trump.

According to Newsom, Wood did not sufficiently demonstrate that her First Amendment rights were likely violated under the law. He emphasized that her pronoun preferences, used while teaching, did not constitute private speech as they were made in the context of her official duties.

"A teacher’s right to speak is not without limits," Newsom wrote in his ruling, framing the classroom as a professional environment in which teachers are acting as agents of the state.

Judicial Opinion Focuses on Employer Context

Newsom acknowledged the precedent set in the 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton School District case, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a football coach’s right to pray publicly. However, he differentiated that case from Wood’s. “When Kennedy was praying, his official duties as a football coach had ceased,” Newsom wrote, noting that Wood’s pronoun usage occurred while she was actively teaching and therefore acting as a government employee.

He maintained that Florida’s law does not unlawfully suppress private expression because Wood’s statements were made within a professional context where the government has greater oversight over content and speech.

The ruling outlines the balance between personal identity and the professional roles educators play in public institutions, particularly those involving minors.

Dissent Highlights Speech as Personal Expression

Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote the dissenting opinion. He disagreed with the panel’s majority view that Wood’s pronoun and title usage amounted to government speech.

Jordan emphasized that Wood’s identifiers were related to her identity, not her job, and thus should be considered protected private speech. “The preferred personal title and pronouns of a teacher are, like her name, significant markers of individual identity,” he wrote.

He further argued that such identifiers “exist outside of, and do not depend on, the school or the government for their existence.” In Jordan’s view, Wood’s use of female pronouns reflects broader social and personal concerns, not workplace communications dictated by government policy.

Implications for Educators Across the State

The ruling effectively upholds Florida’s authority to regulate how public school employees express personal identity within official work settings. Supporters of the statute argue it ensures uniformity and clarity in school environments, while critics warn it limits self-expression and sets a troubling precedent for LGBTQ+ educators.

The case has fueled discussion on the boundary between personal expression and the state’s interest in public education policies. For now, the court’s decision signals that the legal system views teacher speech in classrooms as workplace conduct subject to government regulation.

The law remains in effect statewide, and public school staff are required to follow the language restrictions outlined in the 2023 legislation, regardless of personal beliefs or identities.