⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Sixth Circuit hears an Ohio teacher's challenge to discipline over books in her classroom. She kept four books featuring LGBTQ characters among books students could choose during free time. She says she neither taught from those books nor required anyone to read them. The district suspended her for three days without pay, citing rules requiring approval of classroom materials. She sued, saying the district's "controversial issues" policy was too vague to provide fair warning of punishable conduct. The district court dismissed her lawsuit before trial, concluding that she should have known these books needed approval. The ruling was a judgment on the pleadings: a decision on the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not a trial of disputed facts. "Void for vagueness" concerns fair notice and limits on arbitrary enforcement. Her lawyer will argue that optional reading is not classroom instruction and that "controversial" gives administrators too much discretion. The district will defend its approval rules as sufficiently clear in a school workplace. It will also argue that a separate, unchallenged guideline independently justifies the suspension. That raises redressability, one requirement for standing: could the requested court ruling actually remedy her injury? Her lawyer will dispute that the second rule applies to these books at all.

Cahall v. New Richmond Exempted Village School District, et al. (No. 25-3880) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 22, 2026.