PARENTS DEFENDING EDUCATION v. OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION; MARK T. RAIFF, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Olentangy Local School District; PETER STERN, in his official capacity as Olentangy’s Assistant Director of Equity and Inclusion; RANDY WRIGHT, in his official capacity as Olentangy’s Chief of Administrative Services; KEVIN DABERKOW, in his official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; BRANDON LESTER, in his official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; KEVIN O’BRIEN, in his official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; LIBBY WALLICK, in her official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; LAKESHA WYSE, in her official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education - Articles

All Content

PARENTS DEFENDING EDUCATION v. OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION; MARK T. RAIFF, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Olentangy Local School District; PETER STERN, in his official capacity as Olentangy’s Assistant Director of Equity and Inclusion; RANDY WRIGHT, in his official capacity as Olentangy’s Chief of Administrative Services; KEVIN DABERKOW, in his official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; BRANDON LESTER, in his official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; KEVIN O’BRIEN, in his official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; LIBBY WALLICK, in her official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; LAKESHA WYSE, in her official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jul 29, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: J. Michael Connolly, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Bartholomew T. Freeze, FREUND, FREEZE & ARNOLD, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: J. Michael Connolly, Taylor A.R. Meehan, Cameron T. Norris, James F. Hasson, Thomas S. Vaseliou, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, Emmett E. Robinson, ROBINSON LAW FIRM LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Bartholomew T. Freeze, Genevieve M. Hoffman, FREUND, FREEZE & ARNOLD, Columbus, Ohio, Jessica K. Philemond, Sandra R. McIntosh, Mitchell L. Stith, SCOTT SCRIVEN LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Joseph D. Spate, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, Scott C. Peters, Sherrie C. Massey, Daniel R. Shisler, PETERS KALAIL & MARKAKIS CO., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, Deborah J. Dewart, Hubert, North Carolina, Adam E. Schulman, HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Benjamin Isgur, SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, Roswell, Georgia, David J. Carey, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF OHIO FOUNDATION, Columbus, Ohio, Freda J. Levenson, Amy R. Gilbert, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF OHIO FOUNDATION, Cleveland, Ohio, Tyson C. Langhofer, Matthew W. Hoffmann, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM, Lansdowne, Virginia, John J. Bursch, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM, Washington, D.C., Kayla A. Toney, FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Steven W. Fitschen, NATIONAL LEGAL FOUNDATION, Chesapeake, Virginia, Ronald G. London, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION, Washington, D.C., Talmadge Butts, FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, Montgomery, Alabama, Mark P. Herron, HERRON LAW OFFICES, Lyndhurst, Ohio, Paul Giorgianni, GIORGIANNI LAW LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case concerns a pre-enforcement challenge to school district policies that prohibit harassment based on a variety of protected characteristics, including—as relevant here—gender identity. The Olentangy Local School District, Ohio’s fourth largest, promulgated several anti-harassment and anti-bullying policies. The policies prohibit students from repeatedly and intentionally using non-preferred pronouns to refer to their classmates. On behalf of certain parents and students, Plaintiff Parents Defending Education (PDE) seeks to enjoin the policies’ enforcement based on the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The district court determined that PDE had not met its burden to justify injunctive relief. We AFFIRM.

Attachments: