The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an Ohio school district cannot punish students who don’t want to use so-called “preferred pronouns” for peers who identify as transgender.

The ruling on the case Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education was narrow — 10-7. It stemmed from a policy the Olentangy district had in place that considered any student choosing to use “gendered language they know is contrary to the other student’s identity” as an act of discrimination. In other words, students who used a trans-identifying person’s biological pronouns could be accused of harassment. According to Courthouse News Service, the policy likened not using “preferred” pronouns to “Hispanic students being told by classmates to ‘go back to Mexico!’”

The court majority, however, held a different view. Rather than taking an ideological stand, the judges largely focused on whether a student using another student’s biological pronouns constituted as “substantial interference” to “educational performance.”

“Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive — just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights,” wrote Judge Eric Murphy on behalf of the court’s majority. “The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view.” Murphy added, “Unlike, say, a political diatribe about transgender rights in math class, the mere use of biological pronouns does not entail ‘aggressive, disruptive action.’”

The case made use of the decision from Tinker v. Des Moines, which considered whether students wearing black arm bands to silently protest the Vietnam War was permissible. That 1969 decision ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The vote was 7-2, in which the court ruled that students protesting in that manner did not cause “substantial disruption” and was constitutionally protected as a form of “pure speech.”

Concerning Ohio’s case, the court noted that the school district “has a duty to protect all students — including transgender and nonbinary students — from bullying and harassment.” However, it found that while it is true “a school district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would ‘materially and substantially disrupt’ school activities or infringe the legal ‘rights of others’ in the school community,” the Olentangy district “has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard. It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law.”

As Murphy wrote, “Defending Education’s members want to use biological pronouns not because they seek to ridicule others but because they want to speak what they view as the truth. What evidence permits the school district to treat this speech as ‘abusive’? It points to none.”

Furthermore, this case called out the district on two primary areas of contention. One, the plaintiffs argued the policy caused students to “self-[censor]” for fear of punishment. And two, the policy allegedly applied to students not just at school, but “on their cellphones or other devices while […] not at school.”

One dissenter, Judge Jane Stranch, claimed that this ruling would increase “instances of bullying, harassment, and suicides of trans and non-binary students,” The College Fix reported. Stranch also noted that the Supreme Court had “recently blessed the authority of schools to regulate bullying and harassment.” Nonetheless, supporters are celebrating the ruling as a win for common sense.

On behalf of the plaintiffs, Alliance Defending Freedom’s Senior Counsel John Bursch filed an amicus brief. In response to the court’s ruling, he said that “First Amendment rights don’t disappear behind school doors — whether you’re a teacher, parent, or student.”

“For many,” he continued, “the choice of pronouns communicates their belief that sex is immutable, and to use pronouns or names that reflect a gender identity inconsistent with sex violates their core convictions and tells a harmful lie.”

Aaron Baer, president of the Center for Christian Virtue, also reacted to the ruling, telling The Washington Stand. “A school that is forcing children to lie about whether a boy can become a girl is failing at its most basic duty,” he asserted. “Families have had enough of this nonsensical gender ideology and are pushing back. This isn’t just a win for free speech, it’s also a win for those who believe in science and truth.” As Baer concluded, “Boys are boys, girls are girls, and anyone who says otherwise belongs nowhere near a classroom.”