It all started when two female law students at George Mason University spoke out against putting tampons in the men’s bathroom in a private chat. Now, they’re being punished for it, and the case Cerankosky v. Washington has emerged and made its way to court.

Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara, who are both third-year law students, shared their concerns in a private law student group chat over a fellow student’s proposal to put feminine hygiene products in male restrooms. Two weeks later, without any warning, the school “issued no-contact orders that prohibit them from having any contact with the other student” — which includes in-person, phone, and social media contact. Both Cerankosky and Arcara, alongside the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), believed this violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as Virginia’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. With representation from ADF, a federal lawsuit was filed on Friday.

“Universities — including law schools — must preserve the marketplace of ideas for all in order to encourage civil discourse for our future attorneys, politicians, judges, and leaders,” ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer explained. The two students “respectfully voiced their opinion about biological differences between men and women and how the other student’s proposal blurs those lines at the expense of safety, privacy, and religious conviction.” As a result, Langhofer pointed out that “their academic and professional careers are now in serious jeopardy.”

Reportedly, Cerankosky and Arcara chose to raise their concerns when the male student who proposed the idea for tampons in men’s bathrooms opened the door to discussion. Cerankosky confessed that the proposed policy could lead to men accessing women’s private spaces, which would violate her safety and privacy. Additionally, she argued that it breached her religious convictions about human sexuality. Arcara expressed similar concerns, to which the male student “accused them of bigotry,” according to ADF. Allegedly, he then took his grievance to the school’s DEI Office shortly before the female students got notified of the “no-contact” order.

The Washington Times noted that “the students were disciplined under the university’s Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy.” But as ADF attorneys pointed out, there are several issues with this policy that they highlight in their lawsuit. First, “the school’s policy allows the school to include protected speech as ‘sexual harassment.’” In addition, it “does not require the DEI Office to determine that sexual harassment occurred, give notice to students before they are disciplined, advise the accused of the allegations, or allow students to appeal ‘Supportive Measures’ — which include no-contact orders — imposed by the DEI Office.”

Langhofer added, “George Mason’s policy is far too subjective and allows university officials to punish students simply because their opinions about hotly debated social issues don’t align with their own.” As such, “We are urging the court to restore the students’ First Amendment rights and order George Mason to stop enforcing its policy against protected expression.”

Family Research Council’s David Closson weighed in on the lawsuit with The Washington Stand. According to Closson, “As it has historically been understood in this country, religious freedom includes the freedom to believe what you want in terms of doctrine and theology, and the freedom to order your life in accordance with your deeply held religious convictions. Freedom of speech means you are allowed to express yourself. In the situation at George Mason, it appears school officials have trampled on the religious freedom and free speech rights of these students. That’s problematic, and I’m thankful ADF has stepped in to represent these students.”

Closson also noted what he called the “ludicrous nature” of the proposal that started the controversy. “It never ceases to amaze me when I hear stories about school officials who think it’s a good idea to put tampons in the men’s bathroom,” he stated. “From a biological and scientific standpoint, these types of proposals are asinine. However, the fact that administrators follow through with these ideas is indicative of how deeply entrenched the secular worldview is in so many of these institutions,” he added.

Ultimately, Closson concluded, “These female students should be praised for their boldness; the administrators who push these woke policies are the ones who look utterly ridiculous.”