Federal Judge Blocked University Speech Policy
A court injunction prevents California university officials from penalizing specific speech regarding gender identity.
Updated on Sept. 20, 2026 in Sex Crimes
Live Poll
Should public universities be allowed to regulate speech like deadnaming and misgendering on campus?
A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction barring the University of California from enforcing sexual harassment policy provisions against members of the advocacy group Defending Education. The ruling protects students from being punished for deadnaming or misgendering individuals while on campus.
Why it matters
The court determined that the university's policy likely violated First Amendment rights by compelling speech and functioning as viewpoint-based regulation. This decision addresses the tension between institutional anti-discrimination mandates and constitutionally protected free expression.
United States District Judge Fred W. Slaughter issued the preliminary injunction on September 15, preventing enforcement of specific policies against the plaintiffs. The court has allowed the university to maintain the remainder of its sexual harassment policy.
The players
Fred W. Slaughter
He is a United States District Judge serving in the Central District of California.
Defending Education
This is a conservative advocacy organization that initiated the legal challenge against the university.
University of California
This is a public research university system in California currently subject to the court ruling.
The details
The university complied with the ruling by removing a specific scenario from its mandatory anti-discrimination training that categorized repeated deadnaming as harassment. While the injunction restricts enforcement against Defending Education members, the court denied a request for a broader legal injunction against the university.
Timeline
Defending Education filed the initial lawsuit on June 18, 2026.
Judge Fred W. Slaughter issued the preliminary injunction on September 15, 2026.
Legal Context
This case follows the established precedent of the First Amendment, which protects against viewpoint-based restrictions on speech by public institutions. The ruling marks a significant point in the ongoing debate over how university anti-discrimination policies interact with constitutionally protected expression.
Students and faculty at the university should be aware that certain speech-related disciplinary actions are temporarily restricted under this federal order. The change in mandatory training materials reflects an immediate shift in how the institution processes complaints involving deadnaming.
The takeaway
This ruling highlights the high legal threshold universities must meet when drafting policies that intersect with individual speech rights. It serves as a reminder that public institutions are strictly held to constitutional standards even when pursuing anti-discrimination goals.
Further reading
For broader context on current legal proceedings, visit the Sex Crimes section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Daily Bruin.
Live Poll
Should public universities be allowed to regulate speech like deadnaming and misgendering on campus?
