The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
23-3630•Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education
23-3630Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitNov 1, 2024
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 24a0247p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
PARENTS DEFENDING EDUCATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
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,
Defendants-Appellees.
┐
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
┘
No. 23-3630
On Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:23-cv-01595—Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 1, 2024
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE,
STRANCH, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER,
MURPHY, DAVIS, MATHIS, BLOOMEKATZ, and RITZ, Circuit Judges.
>
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 23-3630 Parents Defending Educ. v. Olentangy
Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
Page 2
_________________
COUNSEL
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC and REPLY: J. Michael Connolly, Cameron
T. Norris, Thomas S. Vaseliou, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for
Appellant. ON RESPONSE: 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. ON BRIEF: Joseph D. Spate,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, John J. Bursch, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM, Washington, D.C., Tyson C.
Langhofer, Mathew W. Hoffmann, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM, Lansdowne,
Virginia, Ilya Shapiro, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, New York, New York, Kayla A. Toney,
FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Adam E. Schulman, HAMILTON
LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Brett R. Nolan, INSTITUTE FOR FREE
SPEECH, Washington, D.C., Talmadge Butts, FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, Gallant,
Alabama, for Amici Curiae.
_________________
ORDER
_________________
A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en
banc of this case. Under Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b), “[a] decision to grant rehearing en banc
vacates the previous opinion and judgment of the court, stays the mandate, and restores the case
on the docket as a pending appeal.”
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this court are
vacated, the mandate is stayed, and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.
The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for
oral argument as soon as possible.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.