A federal judge has temporarily blocked the University of California from enforcing parts of its anti-harassment policy against members of Defending Education, a conservative advocacy group. The preliminary injunction means those members may use names and pronouns inconsistent with a trans person's gender identity without facing university discipline, at least while the full case continues. Around 6,600 trans and nonbinary students are enrolled across UC campuses.

What the ruling actually says

U.S. District Judge Fred Slaughter found that Defending Education was likely to succeed in arguing the UC policy "compels speech and is viewpoint-based," in violation of the First Amendment. The injunction does not strike down UC's anti-harassment policy in full. UC can still act against conduct it classifies as abusive harassment, and Slaughter gave the example of a bully calling a boy "little princess" or "baby girl" as conduct the university can regulate.

What the ruling leaves unanswered is where "commonplace" use of the wrong name or pronouns ends and actionable harassment begins. That gap is not a small one; it is, in practice, the entire question. A student who is called by their birth name in seminar after seminar, by someone who knows perfectly well what their name is, will find little comfort in being told the line exists somewhere but nobody has drawn it yet.

Calling it a speech question frames it the wrong way

I understand the legal argument. The First Amendment is real, public universities are bound by it, and compelled speech doctrine has genuine substance. But framing deliberate misgendering as a free-speech matter repositions a refusal to acknowledge someone as a form of expression that deserves protection, rather than a form of harm that deserves redress.

When someone knows a person's name and chooses, repeatedly and deliberately, to use a different one, that is not speech. It is refusal. It says: I do not accept that you are who you say you are. For a trans student sitting in a seminar, working in a lab group, or attending office hours, that refusal lands every single time. It does not feel like a philosophical position. It feels like being erased.

The student identified only as Student D, quoted in Defending Education's court brief, said they "have to work hard to avoid pronouns or names" when around trans classmates. I want to gently note what that sentence reveals. The effort is in the avoidance, not in the basic courtesy of using someone's name. That is a choice.

What this means on the ground

UC's enrolment records show approximately 0.3% of students identify as transgender men, 0.2% as transgender women, and 1.7% as nonbinary, amounting to around 6,600 people across a student body of 301,000. These are not abstract statistics. They are students attending lectures, submitting coursework, eating in dining halls, and trying to get an education in a climate that has become measurably more hostile since the start of 2025.

The Trump administration has moved against trans-inclusive policies in sports, bathrooms, healthcare, and identity recognition. A federal judge dismissed a Justice Department challenge to California's transgender sports policies earlier this month. A San Bernardino County judge ruled, also this week, that schools cannot be forced to out students but must answer parents' direct questions about a child's gender identity. Each ruling lands in a legal landscape that is shifting fast and not always in the same direction.

Against that backdrop, a ruling that narrows what UC can do to protect its trans students from deliberate misgendering is not an isolated procedural moment. It is one more signal, arriving in a week full of them, that the ground is unstable.

UC's position, and why it matters

UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz said the policy "is designed to protect members of the university community from discrimination and harassment, not to regulate protected speech," and that the university "will always seek to foster a welcoming environment that protects both freedom of expression and the fundamental rights of all members of our community." UC intends to keep defending the policy.

That matters. The injunction is preliminary, not permanent. The case is ongoing. Defending Education filed suit in June 2026, the injunction covers only its members, and the full legal argument has not yet been resolved. UC has not abandoned its policy or its commitment to trans students. The ruling does not represent the end of this story.

Dignity is not a speech question

What I keep coming back to is this: the people most affected by this ruling did not choose to be at the centre of a First Amendment case. They chose to go to university. They enrolled, they turned up, they are doing the work. And now a court has ruled, at least temporarily, that a group whose members include their classmates and colleagues has a likely constitutional right to call them by names they have not used and pronouns that do not fit them.

That is not a neutral outcome presented as legal process. It has a cost, and trans students on UC campuses are the ones who pay it.

I hope UC continues to defend this policy vigorously. And I hope every trans student on a UC campus knows that the existence of this ruling does not mean they are on their own, that their university has not given up on them, and that the fight is still going.

If there is a news story you would like me to cover then just let Sammy know.

Dr Helen Webberley is a Gender Specialist, Medical Educator, and advocate for trans rights and gender diversity.