In what it denominated an “Order,” a three-justice panel of the seven-member Virginia Supreme Court rejected the Loudoun County School Board’s arguments in support of placing on administrative leave a teacher who had allegedly dissented in public before that School Board on its anticipated transgender student policy(ies). In its Order, the panel, among other conclusions, agreed with Mr. Cross, the teacher, upholding a Circuit Court’s preliminary injunction that blocked the suspension and opined as follows:
Under such circumstances, Cross’ interest in making his public comments was compelling. See Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 509-10 (6th Cir. 2021) (explaining that a Christian university professor’s First Amendment interest in not using students’ preferred gender pronouns was “especially strong . . . because [his] speech also relates to his core religious and philosophical beliefs” and because requiring the professor to use students’ preferred gender pronouns “potentially compelled speech on a matter of public concern”); see also Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 660 (2000) (“[T]he fact that an idea may be embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view.”). Although the Board may have considered Cross’ speech to be “a trifling and annoying instance of individual distasteful abuse of a privilege,” we believe Cross has a strong claim to the view that his public dissent implicates “fundamental societal values” deeply embedded in our Constitutional Republic. Mahanoy, 141 S. Ct. at 2048. (citation omitted).