Content Warning: This story contains discussions of gender and identity-based discrimination. 

The University of Minnesota is currently facing a lawsuit against conservative youth advocacy group Young America’s Foundation, with the organization alleging the University violates First Amendment rights to free speech due to its gender and identity policies.

The lawsuit, filed on June 18 by the Southeastern Legal Foundation on behalf of the YAF, is currently awaiting briefing. Plaintiffs in the case are arguing that University policies on gender and pronoun equity and discrimination breach constitutional rights and wrongfully punish students who openly oppose gender diversity.

Members of YAF across multiple University campuses have also claimed to have been forced into self-censoring their speech due to fear of disciplinary action, according to the case document.

In a statement, SLF President Kimberly Hermann said the foundation is happy to be representing YAF. The two groups have collaborated in a past case addressing Title IX, a landmark civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded institutions and schools.

“SLF is proud to have represented YAF in the national lawsuit that stopped the Biden Administration’s attempt to rewrite Title IX and redefine sex to mean gender identity in all 50 states,” Hermann said. “We are now, once again, proud to stand with YAF in the fight for our Constitution, free speech and common sense.”

Hermann said the lawsuit is imperative to ensuring the voices of students do not get suppressed, and the foundation is certain the court will approve of their argument. 

“UMN’s policies silence students who believe in biological reality while at the same time demanding that they use incorrect or so-called preferred pronouns, even if those pronouns do not align with a person’s biological sex,” Hermann said. “This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and we are confident that the courts here will agree with us.”

Key petitions in the case

SLF is requesting the courts declare the actions those who have implemented and enforced policies akin to the University’s as unconstitutional. Along with this, plaintiffs are urging the court to implement a permanent injunction, which could potentially prevent the future implementation and enforcement of the policies permanently if successful.

SLF is requesting a nominal charge of just $1 and reimbursement for litigation-related expenses.

Hermann said there are no agreeable aspects of the current policies. She voiced SLF’s opposition to transgender individuals and expressed solidarity with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent statements surrounding transgender athletes and what he claimed to be their need for psychiatric treatment.

“UMN threatens discipline rising to expulsion if a female merely expresses her desire to not use the restroom or a locker room with a biological male, who, as Justice Thomas recently explained, suffers from ’gender dysphoria’,” Hermann said. “These policies and those like them throughout the country are absurd, unconstitutional and cannot stand.”

Fourth-year University student Jackson Barrick spoke in a video interview with Hermann, sharing his perspective on the matter and the complications he claims to have faced due to the policy.

“I think it’s really important how it affects not just the larger U of M community but also the broader U.S. and state of Minnesota,” Barrick said.

Barrick said he feels this policy makes it difficult for him to avoid punishment from the University.

“It’s been really challenging, especially in my own right where I have to look at the policies down to the individual verbiage to make sure that I’m not put under academic suspension,” Barrick said. “I want to make sure that people are exposed to many different viewpoints without having the fear of myself or other people being prosecuted under certain academic policies.”

University officials turned down interviews regarding the current lawsuit due to the active nature of the litigation. In a statement, they said the University aims to remain steadfast in its mission of maintaining an open, equitable and diverse space for students to learn and exchange ideas.

“The University is deeply committed to both protecting freedom of speech and fostering a safe, inclusive learning environment for all students,” the statement said. “Because this involves active litigation, we cannot comment on the specific allegations of the lawsuit at this time.”

University policy and the First Amendment

University media law professor Christopher Terry explained how, from a legal standpoint, the University’s status as a public institution classifies it as a government agency. This means it is rigidly held to the First Amendment and its implications.

“It’s one of those things, you can have discrimination enforcement, but you can’t have a rule that limits the speech related to that — those two things can coexist,” Terry said.

Additionally, Terry explained how an issue with the policy is that it not only applies to students and staff at the University, but also to temporary visitors.

He said this is a problem because visitors generally do not have any opportunities to agree to adhere to these various policy conditions, contrasting with students and staff who sign agreements as terms of employment and attendance.

“Obviously, that’s a problem, not because I disagree with the policy per se, but because it applies to the people that don’t have anything to do with the University,” Terry said. 

Looking to the future, briefing is the next stage to be expected for the case, where the involved parties will write and submit their arguments to the court, according to Terry and the SLF president.