Who gets to pick the books on school shelves?

When an elementary teacher at a small public school in southwest Ohio added four pro-LGBTQ books to her classroom shelves, administrators suspended her for three days without pay. New Richmond Exempted Village School District officials said the teacher failed to get approval for the literature, following district policy. But Karen Cahall argues that her speech was wrongly silenced through the discipline.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case last Thursday. Cahall through her lawyer told the three judges in the hearing that the district’s policies are unconstitutionally vague. But First Amendment experts I spoke to say the teacher’s arguments are unlikely to hold up.

“[District officials] were trying to just say [that] any of this stuff needs to be approved in advance, and she didn’t follow the rules,” said Brad Jacob, a constitutional law expert at Regent University. “So, she got suspended, and I don’t think her constitutional claim is going to get her anywhere.”

Cahall, who has taught for more than 30 years, was suspended in 2024 after making certain fictional works available to her third grade students. She added Ana on the Edge, The Fabulous Zed Watson!, Hazel Bly and the Deep Blue Sea, and Too Bright To See to her classroom reading bins. The books “deal with characters who are LGBTQ+ and are coming to terms with feeling different,” Cahall said in her original lawsuit. She said the books weren’t part of her classroom curriculum but instead were among around 100 other books provided for reading during free time.

She contends that none of the books were prominently displayed and none describe any sexual conduct or sexual activity. Cahall said she included the books in her classroom to reinforce “her sincerely held moral and religious beliefs that … all children, including children who are LGBTQ+ or the children of parents who are LGBTQ+, deserve to be respected, accepted, and loved for who they are,” according to the lawsuit.

In 2024, district officials suspended Cahall for adding the books to her classroom shelves, citing two separate policies. The first policy limits introducing materials on controversial issues without prior approval. The district defined controversial issues as those that have “opposing points of view” and are “likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.” The second, an instructional materials guideline, requires school leaders to review any books not preapproved by the district before teachers add them to a classroom. As part of this review, officials weigh whether the materials could “create controversy among students, parents, and community groups.”

In a November 2024 letter to Cahall regarding her suspension, an administrator alleged that the teacher had previously asked to add these books to her classroom library and was denied. Despite this, she went ahead with adding the books to her room, the administrator said. “You may believe that some of the books listed above are appropriate for some of your students, but it is not for you to decide,” the administrator wrote. “If you continue to behave in this manner in the future, you will be subjected to more severe discipline up to and including termination of your employment.”

Cahall sued the school over her suspension a month later, contending the controversial issues policy was too vague. She argues its definition of issues is “so vague and all-encompassing that it could extend to virtually any topic upon which any two random individuals or groups of individuals might find something to disagree about.”

She also said that officials had allowed other teachers in the New Richmond school district to prominently display and wear religious insignia.

But a U.S. district judge rejected her claims in 2025. The judge said Cahall was clearly aware that LGBTQ books were controversial, as Cahall noted in her complaint that she wanted to add the books to her collection because officials previously banned teachers from displaying LGBTQ+ flags, stickers, and pins. “There is no question that, on the facts here, Cahall knew that the LGBTQ+-themed books that she placed in the classroom related to a ‘controversial issue,’” the judge said.

Cahall appealed to the 6th Circuit in February this year.

Last week, Cahall’s attorney, Mark Herron, said that the district’s controversial issues policy too vaguely and broadly defined the materials that could fall under it. But U.S. Circuit Judge Joan Larsen highlighted what the lower court had said—Cahall knew the books would draw conflicting responses.

The judges also pressed Herron on why Cahall had only challenged one of the two policies officials cited for her suspension. “You haven’t challenged the instructional materials provision,” Larsen said. “Wouldn’t the suspension still be valid even if we ruled in your favor on vagueness?”

But Herron contested that the LGBTQ books don’t qualify as instructional materials, as “these books were not used for instructional purposes, Ms. Cahall did not teach from them, she did not require students to read from them … these books simply sat in the bins.”

Representing the district, attorney Tabitha Justice said otherwise. “Any material put in the classroom is for the use of the students,” she said. “Resource materials are anything that goes into a classroom and certainly includes books.”

Justice added that the district’s controversial issues policy doesn’t ban all controversial books from being in the classroom, as some of these can serve a legitimate educational purpose. But administrators need to be able to review these materials beforehand, in line with state law. “The Board of Education ultimately decides what materials should be put in front of students,” Justice said.

Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, said the contents of an elementary schoolroom are almost entirely governed by a state’s board of education. The board can rightly decide what materials are or aren’t allowed.

“There’s really not much of a First Amendment argument,” Blackman said. “There might be some space for a teacher’s flair in terms of personal mementos on a desk, but it would seem that the bookshelf is educational space.”

Jacob added that while there can be an argument for constitutional vagueness, New Richmond has a clear definition of controversial. The district’s policy neutrally paved the way for handling contested materials from any perspective, he said.

While Jacob expects the school district will win this case, if the appeals court rules in favor of Cahall, it could be problematic for other schools.

“If the court still finds this unconstitutional, I think they’re going to make it a lot harder for school districts to do what this one did, which is find a balanced way to handle this that protects both sides,” he said. “If they don’t let this rule hold up, I think it’s going to be bad generally around the country.”