Institute for Free Speech Files Amicus Briefs Opposing Colorado’s Mandatory Pronoun Use Law

Press releases are provided to Yellow Scene Magazine. In an effort to keep our community informed, we publish some press releases in whole.

For Immediate Release

Date: June 17, 2026

Media Contact:

Tom Garrett (VP & Chief Communications Officer – Institute for Free Speech)

[email protected] / 202-301-9200

Institute for Free Speech Files Amicus Briefs Opposing Colorado’s Mandatory Pronoun Use Law

Colorado’s anti-discrimination law unlawfully prohibits speech from one side in some of the most hotly contested debates of today

Washington, D.C. — Gender ideology and pronoun use are among the most contentious cultural and political debates of the day. But the First Amendment protects your right to participate in that debate, no matter which side you’re on.

Colorado’s new anti-discrimination law compels speech by forcing speakers to express a message they don’t believe in by using pronouns (and other gendered language) to prevent individuals from feeling “unwelcome.” That’s why the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) filed amicus briefs in three related cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In the law, the state advances its own viewpoint by mandating use of non-standard pronouns and forbidding other perspectives. As IFS’s brief states, “No government can police language to allow messages it likes, while prohibiting those it disapproves—even when the language might ‘provoke[e] offense and condemnation.’”

The brief explains that pronouns have always conveyed a political message, dating at least as far back as seventeenth-century Quakers and the women’s suffrage movement. The use of gendered pronouns today inherently carries an ideological message, and Colorado cannot force a speaker to contradict their own deeply held beliefs by requiring them to either stay silent or use non-standard pronouns.

The brief thus reminds the court that “the First Amendment protects not just the right to speak on one side of an issue, but also the ‘words’ one might use to deliver the message. Were it otherwise, ‘governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views.’”

Speakers in Colorado should not have to censor themselves in the public square when discussing topics related to gender ideology, and “pronouns are the quintessential means by which people express their views on this issue.”

The brief argues that the district court erred by denying the request for a preliminary injunction and that this misstep will continue to censor would-be speakers under threat of sanctions. The brief asks the 10th Circuit to reverse the district court decision.

To read the briefs in Defending Education, et al. v. Aubrey C. Sullivan, et al., Doxa Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Born Again Used Books v. Aubrey C. Sullivan, et al., and Committee of Five, Inc. d/b/a XX-XY Athletics, v. Aubrey C. Sullivan, et al., visit the case page here.

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment.

# # #