Ohio 3rd grade teacher fights suspension over LGBTQ books at Sixth Circuit

The educator was suspended for three days without pay after she made what the district claims were "controversial" reading materials available to her students.CINCINNATI (CN) — A “controversial issues” policy used to punish a teacher for presumed LGBTQ advocacy is unconstitutionally vague, the educator told a Sixth Circuit panel Thursday.Karen Cahall, a teacher with more than 30 years of experience, sued the Board of Education of the New Richmond Exempted Village School District in 2024 after she was suspended for making four works of LGBTQ fiction available to her students.The books were not part of Cahall’s curriculum but instead provided during classroom free time by the teacher to “reinforce her sincere moral and religious beliefs that all children deserve to be respected, accepted and loved for who they are,” she wrote.The district suspended Cahall for violations of two separate policies, including its “controversial issues” rule, which limits the introduction of learning materials on certain topics without prior approval, and an “instructional materials” guideline that requires approval of all classroom materials.A federal judge granted the district’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in September 2025.In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Douglas Cole, an appointee of Donald Trump, rejected Cahall’s vagueness claim after he determined she knew introducing the books would lead to issues with parents.“The policy defined ‘controversial issue’ as including ‘a topic likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.’ Indeed, Cahall was aware that LGBTQ issues had done just that,” Cole wrote. “Indeed, in her complaint, Cahall specifically notes that she added the books to her collection because of a ‘controversy’ surrounding LGBTQ topics, and she did so precisely because she thought that controversy damaging to the emotional health of LGBTQ students in her third-grade class.”Judges questioned Cahall’s attorney, Mark Herron of Lyndhurst, Ohio, Thursday over whether his client had standing to bring an appeal.U.S. Circuit Judge Joan Larsen, a Trump appointee, reminded Herron it was his “responsibility to establish standing” and pointed out each of the policies gave the district an independent reason to suspend Cahall.“You haven’t challenged the instructional materials provision,” she said. “Wouldn’t the suspension still be valid even if we ruled in your favor on vagueness?”Herron emphasized that because the case was decided on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, his client’s claims must be accepted as true.Cahill argues the books do not qualify as “instructional materials.”“These books were never used for instructional purposes, the students were not even told they were there,” Herron said. “She has 100 books in multiple bins, and these books were not pointed out to the students.”Attorney Tabitha Justice, partner at the Dayton, Ohio, firm Subashi, Wildermuth and Justice, argued on behalf of the district and disputed this point.“Any material put in the classroom is for the use of the students,” she told the panel. “Resource materials are anything that goes into a classroom and certainly includes books. A reasonable and licensed teacher in the state of Ohio would know that.”The panel also questioned each of the attorneys about the vagueness of the controversial issues rule.Justice said, “The policy provides a definition of ‘controversial’ and goes on to limit the discretion of the principals who decide what is controversial. It recognizes that controversial materials can serve a pedagogical purpose, but they have to be approved. It is hard to find any plausible argument that this policy is unconstitutionally vague.”In her questioning of Herron, Larsen highlighted Cole’s insistence that Cahall knew the books could draw conflicting responses.“Your client admitted she knew it was controversial; isn’t the policy not vague as applied to her?” Larsen asked.“What is controversial for one person is not controversial to another,” Herron answered. “Anyone can say anything is controversial, but it has to be objectively controversial under the policy.”U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, an appointee of George W. Bush, and U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin Ritz, a Joe Biden appointee, also sat on the panel.The court did not set a timetable for its decision.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads