A federal court in Southern Ohio has ruled that school districts have some leeway to regulate teachers’ classroom libraries under board policies on teaching “controversial issues.” In Cahall v. New Richmond Exempted Village School District, the district suspended a teacher for three days for putting certain books in her classroom library for students to access, without administrative approval.
In that case, a third-grade teacher (Karen Cahall) maintained a classroom library that her students could access during free time in class. Cahall did not teach or assign the books to students. Around 2021, the District was considering providing forms to students to indicate their preferred gender identity, pronouns, and name. The proposal generated opposition in the community, and the District decided not to move forward with the plan, which in turn generated pushback from community members on the other side of the policy debate. In response to this community back-and-forth, Cahall added four books featuring LGBTQ+ characters to her classroom library, without seeking administrative permission. In October 2024, a parent complained about the presence of those books in the classroom library, and the district suspended Cahall for violation of its controversial issues policy.
Cahall sued the district alleging the policy was unconstitutionally vague—in other words, that she was not on notice of the type of behavior that would violate the policy. The court held the policy was not vague as applied to Cahall’s case, because it was obvious from the community discussions in 2021 that LGBTQ+ issues were “controversial” in the community. The policy defined controversial issues as “a topic . . . likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community,” and, given the conversations and debate just a few years previously, the court determined Cahall could not reasonably claim she didn’t know her chosen books would be controversial: “In short, the topic was not merely ‘likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community,’ it in fact had done so.”
Importantly, the court emphasized Cahall’s knowledge of the 2021 controversy and the fact that she added the books to her library specifically in response to that controversy. The court did not hold that the controversial issues policy would allow for discipline of a teacher in all cases involving classroom libraries. In fact, the court acknowledged the policy (NEOLA Policy 2240) “could have been drafted more clearly.” But the Cahall case does open the door to discipline for teachers who knowingly put controversial books in their classroom libraries without administrative approval.
In light of this decision, districts should review their controversial issues policies (NEOLA Policy 2240; OSBA Policy INB) and consult with counsel if there are concerns regarding specific books in classroom libraries.