From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Frank Ricci

In the United States, where freedom of speech is not just a privilege but rather the cornerstone of our constitutional democracy, our First Amendment rights are at stake in Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education.

In July, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that an Ohio school district could enact a code of conduct requiring students to refer to one another based on self-defined gender identity –– i.e., mandating the use of “preferred pronouns.” The ruling effectively compels speech from school-aged children that may contradict deeply held beliefs about biological sex. The Olentangy Local School District’s policy must be struck down.

Thankfully, not all bad decisions stick. Two weeks ago, the Sixth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc, a signal that a majority of the circuit’s judges may wish to reconsider the panel’s earlier July ruling. Regardless of the outcome, the loser is likely to file for review before the Supreme Court in the 2026 Term.

The stakes are high as the Sixth Circuit prepares to rule on a case that tees up yet another hot-button debate about pronoun policies, parental rights, religious liberty, and free speech in public schools.

This case is about more than policy. It encompasses the very essence of what it means to be free in thought and expression, particularly in our educational institutions.

The Olentangy Local School District has enacted rules seeking to dictate how students refer to one another based on self-defined gender identity, effectively compelling speech that may contradict deeply held beliefs about biological sex.

This is more than administrative overreach; it is an assault on students’ First Amendment rights to express their views on sex and gender without fear of coercion or reprisal.

That is why Yankee Institute has joined an amicus brief filed by Advancing American Freedom (AAF) to challenge this unconstitutional intrusion on free speech.

Those imposing such policies often argue that they create a psychologically “safe” environment for all students. But perceived “safety” for some should not come at the expense of freedom for all. The policy at issue does not limit itself to the constitutionally permissible goal of preventing harassment; instead, it imposes a new linguistic (and social) orthodoxy to which students must conform or else be punished.

As George Orwell warned, those who can control language can manipulate thought. The left understands this principle well, as demonstrated in Orwell’s novel “1984,” where Newspeak was enforced to narrow the population’s range of thought.

Such manipulation is not the role of public schools. Schools are supposed to be forums for debate, not indoctrination centers where only one viewpoint is tolerated. Unfortunately, all too often, they have become ground zero for identity politics, with teachers’ unions imposing their ideological agendas rather than providing the real skills our children need.

When a district like Olentangy decides to punish students for expressing beliefs about the immutability of sex, viewpoint discrimination is clearly at play. This is antithetical to the principles laid out by the Supreme Court in cases like Tinker v. Des Moines, where it affirmed that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

What is more, the policy’s enforcement could lead to a chilling effect on speech, where students would self-censor rather than risk punishment for using language that aligns with their personal beliefs.

This is not just about pronouns; it is about the broader implications for educating youth on tolerance, diversity and the respectful expression of differing opinions.

Olentangy’s policy fails to meet the stringent requirements set forth by the Supreme Court’s precedent on content-based restrictions. The evidence cited by the school district to justify these restrictions — newspaper stories, law review articles and therapist quotes — lacks the substantial proof of disruption necessary to override First Amendment protections.

As seen in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L., discomfort or upset among students, without more, does not constitute the “substantial disorder” needed to justify speech restrictions.

If school administrators are handed the power to regulate speech, we are teaching our children — and society at large — that we value conformity over individual conscience. This case isn’t about protecting a minority from perceived offense; it is about safeguarding the rights of all students to freedom of speech and conscience, even (or especially!) when it is unpopular or contravenes current cultural trends.

It is time to remind our schools that they exist to maintain the spirit of free inquiry, not to enforce a singular, forced narrative on identity. Let’s ensure that American schools remain places where students can debate, learn and grow into informed citizens who cherish liberty over compelled conformity.

As Emily Dickenson stated: “Truth is such a rare thing, it is delightful to tell it.”

For the sake of our nation’s future, we must protect each individual’s freedom to speak truth as he or she sees it.

Frank Ricci is a Fellow at Yankee Institute and was the lead plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case Ricci v Destefano. He retired as a Battalion Chief in New Haven CT. He has testified before Congress and is the author of the book, Command Presence.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

President-elect Donald Trump has a big job ahead of him in restoring common sense and sanity to federal energy policy when he takes office on January 20. The last four years in this realm can more accurately be characterized as a series of ill-considered, irrational scams than as any sort of coherent, productive set of policies. It has been four years of bad policies — largely based on crass crony capitalism principles — that has done severe damage to America’s level of energy security.

There is no doubt that cleaning up this mess left behind by President Joe Biden and his appointees will take the full four years of Trump’s second term. But the new president will be able to take some fast actions to jump-start the process as part of his first 100 days agenda.

With respect, here is a list of 10 quick common-sense actions Trump can take to begin to restore America’s energy security:

1 — Rescind Biden’s ridiculous permitting “pause” on LNG export infrastructure. Of all the Biden energy policy scams, this was perhaps the most heinous and unjustified of all. Terminate it immediately and get this American growth industry back on track.

2 — Terminate U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreement and in any future annual COP conferences sponsored by the United Nations. Halt the spending of federal dollars related to any and all goals and commitments related to either of these wasteful processes.

3 — Terminate the office of Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy, aka “the Climate Envoy,” currently occupied by John Podesta and eliminate its budget.

4 — Turnabout being fair play, Trump should invoke a “pause” of his own related to permits and subsidies going to Biden’s pet offshore wind boondoggle. The pause would be justified by the need to conduct a truly thorough study on the potential impacts of those massive developments on marine mammals, seabirds, and the commercial fishing industry. Invoke the “precautionary principle” that has been ignored by Biden regulators related to these costly and possibly deadly projects.

5 — Order the Interior Department to immediately and aggressively restart the moribund oil-and-gas leasing program on federal lands and waters. Direct the Interior Department Inspector General to investigate the Biden-era manipulations of these programs for potential criminal violations.

6 — Form an interagency task force to recommend ways the executive branch of government can act to streamline permitting processes for energy projects that do not require congressional action. Congress has proven several times now that it is incapable of passing legislation in this arena.

7 — Place an immediate hold on all green energy subsidies pending a full compliance review. This should include any and all subsidy programs that were part of the IRA or the 2021 Infrastructure law. This review should also include suggested reforms to qualification requirements for these subsidy programs in light of the high percentage of bankruptcy filings by unsustainable companies that have benefited from these subsidies.

8 — In light of the Supreme Court’s recent recission of the Chevron Deference, order the Environmental Protection Agency to review the rationale for regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide, aka “plant food,” as a pollutant under the provisions of the Clean Air Act.

9 — Order an interagency review of the U.S. power grid and transmission infrastructure as they relate to national security concerns. Include a special focus on the current, growing trend of major tech firms locking up power generation assets for their own specific needs (AI, data centers, etc.) which might deny generation capacity that would otherwise be dedicated to the public grid.

10 — In light of recent reports of Biden regulators steering billions of dollars of IRA and other green energy funds to NGOs to provide funding for anti-fossil fuel propaganda, lawfare, and other abuses of the legal system, order an immediate freeze on all such spending pending a formal review.

In reality, this list could consist of hundreds of high priority items for the new administration to undertake. Such is the level of damage that has been wrought on American energy security by the outgoing administration.

But executing these ten items in the early days of his second term would represent a good start and place the country on a path to recovery. We wish Trump and his appointees the best of luck in restoring U.S. energy security.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.