Skip to content 
A federal appeals court has ruled that a Maryland public school system can require educators to use students’ names and pronouns that align with the students’ gender identity, rejecting a Christian substitute teacher’s claim that the policy violates the First Amendment.
The decision, issued January 28 by a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of two constitutional claims brought by Kimberly Ann Polk against the Montgomery County Board of Education.
What the Court Decided
In a 2–1 ruling, the panel held that the district’s gender-identity guidelines, including requirements around pronoun use and limits on disclosing a student’s gender identity to parents without the student’s consent, did not state viable First Amendment claims under existing precedent.
The majority also upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction Polk sought to return to substitute teaching under carve-outs from the guidelines.
The majority opinion was written by Robert B. King and joined by Stephanie D. Thacker.
What the Policy Requires
The case centers on “Guidelines for Student Gender Identity” adopted by Montgomery County Public Schools, which the court opinion describes as requiring teachers to:
- refer to students by their preferred pronouns, and
- refrain from discussing a student’s gender identity with the student’s parents without the student’s consent.
Polk objected on religious grounds and sought an accommodation. The district court record describes mandatory staff training and an affirmation step tied to understanding and following the guidelines, which Polk refused to complete.
The Legal Reasoning in Plain Terms
View this post on Instagram
The Fourth Circuit’s majority agreed with the lower court that the speech at issue, how a teacher addresses students and communicates with parents while on the job, falls within a public employee’s official duties, not protected personal speech in the classroom setting.
On the free exercise claim, the lower court and the Fourth Circuit treated the guidelines as neutral and generally applicable rules for employees, rather than a policy targeting religion, which makes constitutional challenges harder under current Supreme Court doctrine.
The Dissent: Compelled Speech Concerns
- Harvie Wilkinson III dissented. Reporting on the ruling notes that he framed the policy as compelled speech and warned about its effect on disagreement in public debate over transgender issues.
How the Case Got Here
A condensed timeline based on court filings and reporting:
- 2021: Polk begins working as a substitute teacher in the district.
- 2022: Teachers are required to review training on the gender-identity guidelines and affirm they will follow them, according to the district court record.
- January 2025: Deborah L. Boardman dismisses Polk’s First Amendment claims and denies a preliminary injunction, while allowing a Title VII claim to proceed.
- January 28, 2026: Fourth Circuit affirms dismissal of the constitutional claims and the denial of injunctive relief on those claims.
Why the Ruling Matters Beyond One Teacher
The Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction covers five states, and the decision arrives amid a steady stream of litigation over how schools handle gender identity, student privacy, parental notification, and staff speech.
Related cases have already moved through the same district. In 2023, the Fourth Circuit ruled parents lacked standing to challenge parts of Montgomery County’s gender-support plan framework because they had not alleged their own children were affected in a concrete way.
At the Supreme Court level, Montgomery County has been the focal point of separate, high-profile disputes about religion and school policies.
For example, in 2025 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that religious parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring an opt-out option from certain classroom materials, according to Reuters.
What Happens Next
Polk’s attorney told reporters the legal team is considering seeking rehearing by the full Fourth Circuit or asking the Supreme Court to review the case.
