Filed Date: May 11, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
In this case, parents challenge a school district’s anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies that, among other provisions, required students to use other students’ preferred pronouns.
On May 11, 2023, Parents Defending Education, now called “Defending Education,” a nonprofit “working to restore schools…from activists imposing harmful agendas,” filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education (the “school district”), its Superintendent, Chief of Administrative Services, Assistant Director of Equity and Inclusion, and specific board members. They challenged three school district provisions: Policy 5517, prohibiting discriminatory harassment or bullying, Policy 5136, prohibiting bullying via messages sent from students’ personal devices, and the Code of Conduct, which barred “discriminatory language,” including intentional misgendering of transgender students. They claimed that the policies constituted compelled speech in contradiction of their sincerely-held religious beliefs, that the policies were content and viewpoint discrimination, and that the policies were overbroad, all in violation of the First Amendment. In addition, they alleged that the policies infringed on parental rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because they regulated speech outside of school. They sought a declaratory judgment that the policies were unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction barring enforcement of the policies, and costs and attorneys fees. The case was assigned to Judge Algenon L. Marbley.
On June 27, 2023, the school district moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing.
On July 28, 2023, the court denied Defending Education’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that it had failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on either its First or Fourteenth Amendment claims. 684 F.Supp.3d 684. The court found that the challenged speech fit squarely into the carve-out to schoolchildren’s First Amendment rights under Tinker v. Des Moines, permitting prohibition of speech necessary to maintain a learning environment. In addition, it found that the Fourteenth Amendment did not encompass a right to “direct how a public school teaches their child.” The court also found that Defending Education had not shown that the remaining preliminary injunction factors sufficiently favored the imposition of an injunction.
Defending Education appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on July 30, 2023, briefing only the First Amendment issues. In the Sixth Circuit, numerous nonprofits and other organizations filed amicus briefs. On July 29, 2024, Judge Jane B. Stranch, writing for the 2-1 majority with Judge Stephanie D. Davis, affirmed the decision of the district court. 109 F.4th 453. She held that Defendant Education had not made a “clear showing” that it was likely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claims, which was “generally dispositive” in First Amendment cases. "Judge Stranch acknowledged that forced use of preferred pronouns might be compelled speech but here, a prohibition against using non-preferred pronouns was not." Judge Alice M. Batchelder dissented. She argued that the Defending Education’s compelled speech and viewpoint-discrimination claims were likely to succeed on the merits, and that the school district had not made a sufficient showing under Tinker that the prohibited speech was likely to be disruptive.
On August 26, 2024, Defending Education filed a petition for a rehearing en banc in the appellate court, supported by briefs from other nonprofits. The Sixth Circuit granted the rehearing on November 1, 2024. 120 F.4th 536 (Mem). Nonprofits and other organizations filed more amicus briefs in support of both parties. On December 23, 2024, states West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Dakota, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Missouri, Georgia, Montana, Texas, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Ohio filed a joint amicus brief in support of Defending Education.
In September 2024, while the petition for rehearing en banc remained pending, the school district amended Policies 5517 and 5136. It removed speech that might “cause discomfort or humiliation” or amount to “teasing” from the definition of “bullying” and clarified that its personal-communication devices policy “should not be interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students.” Thus, in its supplemental brief filed December 11, 2024 in the Sixth Circuit, Defending Education adjusted its request for relief to an injunction that barred the School District from “punishing students for misgendering other students.”
On November 6, 2025, the Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded the decision of the district court in a 10-7 judgment. 158 F.4th 732. Judge Eric E. Murphy wrote for the majority, concluding that the school district’s “modest changes” to the policies did not moot the threatened freedom of speech injuries. Like the earlier dissent, the court found that the school district discriminated based on students’ viewpoints and violated the First Amendment when it prohibited speech (use of “biological pronouns”) that expressed a belief that a person’s sex is immutable. In addition, it found that the school district had not sufficiently shown that use of “biological pronouns” would “disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment” to fall within the Tinker carve-out. It held that “the closer the speech resembles political expression at the First Amendment’s core, the more evidence a school must present of the potential disruption or violation of rights.” Because the school district failed to satisfy this interpretation of the Tinker standard, the court declined to rule on whether the school district had also unconstitutionally compelled speech. On remand, the Sixth Circuit ordered the district court to issue an “appropriately tailored preliminary injunction barring the district from punishing students for the commonplace use of biological pronouns.”
Judge Alice M. Batchelder concurred, finding that the school district had impermissibly compelled speech as well as impermissibly discriminated based on viewpoint. In addition, she argued that the Tinker exception should not apply at all to cases involving viewpoint-discrimination or compelled speech. Judge Raymond J. Kethledge concurred, providing a historical common-law perspective of Tinker and freedom of speech in schools. Judges Amul R. Thapar and John B. Nalbandian concurred, arguing that viewpoint-discrimination on an ongoing political debate should be ineligible for the Tinker exception. Judge John K. Bush concurred, arguing that the case involved “English language and grammar usage [] completely beyond the government’s regulatory authority,” thus making Tinker irrelevant.
Judge Stranch, joined by six other judges, dissented, arguing that the school district’s policies had operated without issue for twelve years and that Defending Education, as well as the majority, had failed to sufficiently consider the harms inflicted on transgender and nonbinary children. She reasoned that Defending Education had failed to make a clear showing that the school district’s prohibition constituted compelled speech or viewpoint-discrimination. She also claimed that the school district had made a sufficient showing that “intentional, repeated use of non-preferred pronouns” would cause a “reasonable forecast” of “substantial disruption” under Tinker.
On January 26, 2026, the district court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the school district from enforcing any policy against Defending Education members or their children for “referring to another student, in a commonplace way, using pronouns that are consistent with the other student’s birth sex but inconsistent with that student’s gender identity.” 2026 WL 205616.
As of April 10, 2026, the school district is required to file an answer to Defending Education’s complaint by April 30, 2026. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Audrey Li (4/22/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67367179/parties/parents-defending-education-v-olentangy-local-school-district-board-of/
Connolly, John Michael (Ohio)
Bursch, John J. (- United States (national) -)
Butts, Talmadge (- United States (national) -)
Carey, David Joseph (- United States (national) -)
Corn-Revere, Robert L. (- United States (national) -)
Bursch, John J. (- United States (national) -)
Butts, Talmadge (- United States (national) -)
Carey, David Joseph (- United States (national) -)
Corn-Revere, Robert L. (- United States (national) -)
Daugherty, Donald Albert (- United States (national) -)
Deters, William M. (- United States (national) -)
Deutsch, Ruthanne Mary (- United States (national) -)
Dewart, Deborah Jane (- United States (national) -)
Fitschen, Steven W. (- United States (national) -)
Gilbert, Amy Rose (- United States (national) -)
Giorgianni, Paul (- United States (national) -)
Herron, Mark P. (- United States (national) -)
Hoffmann, Mathew (- United States (national) -)
Isgur, Benjamin (- United States (national) -)
Langhofer, Tyson Charles (- United States (national) -)
Levenson, Freda J. (- United States (national) -)
Loewy, Karen (- United States (national) -)
London, Ronald Gary (- United States (national) -)
Massey, Sherrie Clayborne (- United States (national) -)
Morgan, Kerry Lee (- United States (national) -)
Nolan, Brett Robert (- United States (national) -)
Olson, William Jeffrey (- United States (national) -)
Peters, Scott C. (- United States (national) -)
Schulman, Adam Ezra (- United States (national) -)
Shapiro, Ilya (- United States (national) -)
Shisler, Daniel (- United States (national) -)
Spate, Joseph David (- United States (national) -)
Sridharan, Mathura Jaya (- United States (national) -)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67367179/parents-defending-education-v-olentangy-local-school-district-board-of/
Last updated April 3, 2026, 9:51 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 11, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Parents Defending Education, now called “Defending Education,” a nonprofit “working to restore schools at all levels from activists imposing harmful agendas.”
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
School District
Olentangy Local School District Board of Education
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Ohio 2:23-cv-01595
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 23-03630
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Religion(s):
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47685/ (last updated 4/22/2026).