Free Speech Under Fire: CA Justices Restore Compelled Pronoun Law

Eight years ago, when California lawmakers first considered SB 219, California Family Council warned that the bill would lead to the punishment of faithful caregivers who declined to use state-mandated pronouns. At the time, CFC’s Vice President Greg Burt testified before the legislature that “compelled speech is not free speech,” urging lawmakers not to criminalize caregivers for acknowledging biological reality. Those warnings were dismissed as alarmist.

Last month, the California Supreme Court proved them true.

In a sweeping decision, the Court reinstated the most coercive portion of SB 219, known as the “pronouns provision,” reversing the 2021 Third District Court of Appeal ruling that had struck it down as unconstitutional. The law now once again threatens fines and even jail time for long-term care staff who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a resident’s preferred pronouns. There is no exemption for faith-based nursing homes.

The ruling came in the case Taking Offense v. California, which challenged SB 219’s restrictions on speech within long-term care facilities. In 2021, the Court of Appeals held that the pronoun mandate violated the First Amendment because it regulated the content of speech, not conduct. But on November 6, 2025, the California Supreme Court reversed course, declaring that the law should be seen not as compelled speech but as a “regulation of discriminatory conduct that incidentally affects speech.”

Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, writing for the majority, claimed the statute is “carefully calibrated and does not restrict long-term care facilities’ staff from expressing their views about gender… other than by misgendering a resident.” She concluded that “the prohibition is limited to willful, repeated, knowing acts” and therefore falls outside First Amendment protections.

Yet as attorney David Llewellyn, the lawyer for Taking Offense, told Courthouse News, the only “conduct” the statute regulates is speech itself. “Embarrassing,” he said of the ruling.

And he is right.

What SB 219 Actually Requires (and What It Does Not)

It is important to describe the law precisely and accurately.

SB 219 amended the state Health & Safety Code to prohibit a range of bias-related actions in skilled-nursing and residential-care facilities. Among these is the requirement that staff not persistently:

• use a resident’s former name (“dead-naming”), or

• use pronouns contrary to the resident’s stated preference.

Accidental or isolated mistakes are not punishable under SB 219.
The statute applies only to “willful and repeated” violations — meaning intentional, knowing, and continual refusal.

However, the law still carries misdemeanor penalties:

• up to a $1,000 fine,

• and up to six months in county jail.

And although prosecutors have never filed a case under this provision, the threat is very real. Every caregiver in the state is now subject to potential criminal investigation merely for speaking in accordance with their conscience, beliefs, or understanding of biological reality.

How We Got Here: A Timeline

2017 — SB 219 introduced.
Senator Scott Wiener proposes penalties, including up to six months in jail, for caregivers who do not use a resident’s preferred pronouns. CFC, led by Greg Burt, testifies that the bill violates the First Amendment and criminalizes people of faith for speaking truthfully.