Understanding how courts interpret school policies is essential for today’s educational leaders, especially as issues involving gender identity continue to evolve.
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, offers important guidance for school districts navigating the balance between protecting students and respecting the personal beliefs of staff. This blog post breaks down what the Polk decision means for your district and offers practical steps to help ensure your policies remain both legally sound and supportive of all students.
Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools sets a precedent within the Fourth Circuit allowing schools to enforce religiously neutral gender identity policies which regulate employee speech in the course of their official duties without violating the First Amendment, even when these policies conflict with the religious beliefs of the employee. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s rejection of a substitute teacher’s constitutional challenge to the enforcement of her school district’s gender identity guidelines, reinforcing the authority of school boards to regulate lawful speech made by employees in the course of their official duties notwithstanding personal religious objections.
Montgomery County Public Schools (“MCPS”), the largest school district in Maryland, enacted guidelines requiring teachers to use students’ preferred pronouns and prohibiting teachers from discussing a student’s gender identity with parents without the student’s consent. Kimberly Polk, a substitute teacher for MCPS during the 2021–2022 school year, refused to affirm that she understood her obligation to follow MCPS’s gender identity guidelines due to her Christian beliefs. The gender identity policy at issue required staff members to address students using their identified name and pronouns and to maintain the confidentiality of a student’s transgender status. Polk’s refusal to comply with the guidelines disqualified her from serving as a substitute teacher in MCPS.
In May 2024, Polk filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Montgomery County Public School System, Board of Education, and school officials, alleging that enforcing their gender identity policy without exception violated her right to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, as well as her right to reasonable accommodations for religious customs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Polk requested a preliminary injunction requiring MCPS to place her in a classroom with “no transitioning students.”[1]
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed Polk’s First Amendment free exercise claim on the grounds that she failed to show the school system’s policy was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, as compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is recognized as a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court dismissed Polk’s freedom of speech claim on the grounds that the speech at issue was not protected speech under the First Amendment because the school board can compel lawful speech as part of a teacher’s official duties. Finally, the District Court ruled that Polk was not entitled to a preliminary injunction on her Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim because she did not show irreparable harm.
In late January 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction—a doctrine allowing an appellate court to review otherwise non-appealable claims when they are intertwined with an appealable order—to review the constitutional claims alongside the denial of injunctive relief. The Fourth Circuit concluded, “we agree and adopt the district court’s analysis in all respects, as set forth in the Opinion, and we affirm.”[2] The Fourth Circuit held that although the school system’s gender identity guidelines placed a cognizable burden on the teacher’s religious exercise, they were neutral and generally applicable, thus subject only to rational basis review under Employment Division v. Smith, which holds that neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they incidentally burden religious practice. The Fourth Circuit found the guidelines rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, such as compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, student safety, and equal treatment. The Fourth Circuit further held that the compelled use of pronouns and restrictions on parent communication were official job duties, not private speech on matters of public concern. Therefore, they were not protected by the First Amendment under Garcetti v. Ceballos, which established that public employees do not have First Amendment protection for statements made pursuant to their official duties. A dissent argued that the compelled pronoun policy implicated core free speech protections and warranted application of the Pickering balancing test, a framework that weighs a public employee’s interest in speaking on matters of public concern against the employer’s interest in efficient operations.
What This Means to You
This case highlights the tension between school policies designed to protect transgender and gender nonconforming students and the religious beliefs of educators. The Fourth Circuit’s decision underscores the authority of school boards to implement policies that require teachers to adhere to guidelines on gender identity, even when these policies conflict with personal religious beliefs. The ruling provides key guidance for educational institutions navigating this intersection of gender identity policies and the constitutional rights of educators.
First, school districts should ensure that gender identity policies are drafted neutrally, avoiding policies that target specific religious viewpoints. Second, lawful speech made by employees in the course of their official duties may be regulated by the employer without violating the First Amendment. It is important for school districts to clearly state that adherence to policies governing interaction with students is a condition of employment. Third, although Polk’s Title VII claim was not decided on the merits, it is important for schools to be mindful of their obligations to provide reasonable accommodations for religious customs under Title VII. Schools should document accommodation requests and their responses carefully and consult legal counsel to evaluate whether a proposed accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the district’s operations or compromise student welfare. This decision may influence how other school districts across the country develop and enforce similar policies, balancing student rights with the religious beliefs of staff.
The legal landscape surrounding gender identity policies in schools continues to evolve rapidly. Schools should monitor developments at both the federal and state levels, regularly review and update their policies, and provide ongoing training to staff to ensure compliance with current legal requirements. Proactive engagement with these issues will help districts protect both student rights and institutional interests.
If you have questions about how these developments could impact your state, school, or district, please reach out to the authors or your Husch Blackwell attorney.
[1] Polk v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Schs., No. CV DLB-24-1487, 2025 WL 240996, at *1 (D. Md. Jan. 17, 2025), aff’d, 166 F.4th 400 (4th Cir. 2026) quoting ECF 4, at 1.
[2] Polk v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Schs., No. 25-1136,at 3 (4th Cir. Jan. 28, 2026).