DARBI BODDY v. MARY GRECH, individually and in her official capacity as President of the Board of Education of the Xenia Community City School District; XENIA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION - Articles

All Content

DARBI BODDY v. MARY GRECH, individually and in her official capacity as President of the Board of Education of the Xenia Community City School District; XENIA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jun 10, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Curt C. Hartman, THE LAW FIRM OF CURT C. HARTMAN, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Bernard W. Wharton, MCCASLIN, IMBUS & MCCASLIN, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Curt C. Hartman, THE LAW FIRM OF CURT C. HARTMAN, Cincinnati, Ohio, Christopher P. Finney, FINNEY LAW FIRM LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Bernard W. Wharton, MCCASLIN, IMBUS & MCCASLIN, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): GRIFFIN, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. During a public comment period of a Xenia School Board meeting, plaintiff Darbi Boddy attempted to express her views regarding the school district’s alleged teaching of critical race theory. In prepared remarks, delivered in a calm and deliberate manner, Boddy took issue with the “cowardice” of the school district’s superintendent and characterized the Board as “failing.” Displeased with the speech, Board president Mary Grech threatened to turn off Boddy’s microphone. Forty seconds later, as some in the audience became disruptive in reaction to Boddy’s remarks, defendant Grech abruptly seized Boddy’s microphone and recessed the meeting. Boddy was denied her allotted five minutes of public comment, and she was not offered any additional time to address the Board when the meeting resumed. Boddy brought this action seeking vindication of her First Amendment rights. The district court denied Boddy’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that she had failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. We disagree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the entry of a preliminary injunction in Boddy’s favor.

Attachments: