On May 19, 2025, Parents Defending Education (PDE), joined by Do No Harm, Protect Kids Colorado, and CPAN Colorado, filed a lawsuit against a new Colorado law aimed at transgender protections.

The law, known as the Kelly Loving Act, defines “deadnaming” and “misgendering” as discriminatory acts in public accommodations, prompting accusations of compelled speech.

PDE President Nicki Neily argues that the law forces citizens to use specific language on sex and gender, violating First Amendment rights. “Citizens cannot be forced to say what the government wants,” Neily stated on X.

Colorado just enacted a law that compels speech on sex and gender and punishes citizens who disagree. We’re suing.

Citizens cannot not be forced to say what the government wants them to say. That's why we have First Amendment. pic.twitter.com/VhFaSZGqx9

— Nicki Neily (@nickineily) May 19, 2025

The law, passed on May 6, 2025, and set to take effect on August 6, 2025, has sparked intense debate.

Critics, including former Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams, have called its provisions “coercive,” while supporters argue it safeguards transgender individuals.

The case remains under legal review.

Kelly Loving Act and Its Implications

The Kelly Loving Act, named after a transgender woman killed in the 2022 Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, amends the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to include “deadnaming” and “misgendering” as discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation. According to the bill, “deadnaming” refers to using a transgender person’s former name instead of their chosen name, while “misgendering” involves referring to someone using pronouns or gender terms that do not align with their gender identity. The law prohibits these actions in public spaces like businesses, schools, and healthcare facilities, aiming to protect transgender individuals from harassment and discrimination. It also allows exemptions for public entities to use legal names when necessary for verification or legal purposes, such as in official documentation.

Supporters, including bill advocates like Tiffany (a friend of Kelly Loving), argue that the law protects transgender individuals by fostering acceptance and reducing harm without infringing on free speech. They claim it does not compel speech because it does not mandate specific language use but instead prohibits discriminatory behavior, similar to existing anti-discrimination laws that bar racial or sexual harassment. For example, the law does not require individuals to use particular pronouns but penalizes intentional and repeated misgendering in public accommodations as a form of discrimination, which supporters say targets conduct, not speech. Transgender advocate Sybil Vane, testifying during the bill’s hearings, emphasized that the law ensures transgender people are afforded the same dignity as others, framing it as a matter of equal treatment rather than speech regulation.

However, opponents, including PDE, argue that the law does compel speech by effectively requiring individuals to adopt language that aligns with a person’s gender identity, even if it conflicts with their beliefs or understanding of biological sex. They assert that penalizing “misgendering” forces individuals to use pronouns or terms they may not agree with, violating First Amendment protections against compelled speech, as established in cases like West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). Critics also highlight that the law’s application in public accommodations could extend to private citizens, such as parents or teachers, potentially chilling free expression. For instance, a parent refusing to use their child’s preferred pronouns in a public setting could face legal consequences, which opponents argue crosses into speech compulsion. The law’s broad scope and lack of clear exemptions for personal speech fuel concerns that it prioritizes transgender protections over constitutional rights, setting the stage for a contentious legal battle.