BREAKING: The 11th Circuit, 2-1, holds that a trans woman has *not* shown that Florida's law banning her from

[In It to Win It]

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

BREAKING: The 11th Circuit, 2-1, holds that a trans woman has *not* shown that Florida’s law banning her from using her proper pronouns likely violates the First Amendment. The appeals court reverses the district court. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202411239.pdf

BREAKING: The 11th Circuit, 2-1, holds that a trans woman has *not* shown that Florida’s law banning her from using her proper pronouns likely violates the First Amendment. The appeals court reverses the district court. media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-07-02T14:03:50.407Z

This is an absolutely outrageous decision — especially coming days after Mahmoud — from two Trump appointees and furthers the horrifying picture that is emerging and that I wrote about yesterday in covering Mahmoud at Law Dork: www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-par...

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-07-02T14:05:57.704Z

sad to see this. The law is atrocious animus, as there is no basis other than animus to force workplace misgendering like this. But the claim at issue here was a 1A claim, which is trickier - still the ct gets it wrong.

— Jamie Fox (@whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social) 2025-07-02T15:00:19.157Z

[rzemanfl]

1. Two Trump appointees. I was sure before I saw that was the case.

[cadoman]

2. what does this case have to do with the first amendment?

Wouldn't workplace harassment, privacy, or medical discrimination be a more appropriate avenue of pursuit?

And TBH, wouldn't the remedy sought in fact by an infringement on the defendants first amendment rights?

[hlthe2b]

3. I don't disagree with your analysis of a more appropriate legal strategy...

One has to wonder how good her attorney(s) were... But yes, the 1st amendment was undoubtedly the "defense" against her claim rather than promoting a violation of her specific rights as a harassment, discrimination, or privacy litigation might have been able to show.

But, I feel it necessary to likewise point out that anyone reading my or the other poster's comment in rapid fire and missing that neither of us is arguing against the issue, but only the strategic manner in which the case was brought, should "take a beat" and read more carefully. That is not the case

[TommyT139]

4. If I had to guess

...I would say that her lawyers held that forcing her to respond to a malgendering "honorific" was compelling speech.

I would also guess that they had good reasons for not trying to argue workplace discrimination (which might be included under Bostwick? I'm not sure) -- either because there is something about the context of it being a public school; or perhaps simply because that would be so much harder to prove.

Fuck Florida. We need good teachers up here, not that this version of coerced migration is a real answer.

[surfered]

5. Congratulations on 24 years 🎊

[hlthe2b]

6. Oh, my. It took me a bit to figure out what 24 years meant. LOL... Denial is strong, but THANKS!!

[surfered]

8. You were listed in Earl G's milestones post this morning

[hlthe2b]

9. Ahh, thanks...

[Passages]

7. Make America Hate More People Again.

Miserable bastards.