YOUNGSTOWN — U.S. District Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson has banned the plaintiffs and defendants in the three federal Ursuline High School lawsuits from making any further commentary on blogs or elsewhere pending the completion of the lawsuits.

Citing the “substantial probability” that further commentary outside of court on the lawsuits filed by the Chandra Law Firm against Ursuline High School and other defendants in recent months could prejudice the defendant’s rights to a fair trial, Pearson ordered Thursday that the plaintiffs in the lawsuits and their counsel are “prohibited for the duration of these cases, from directly or indirectly making public statements, appearances or publications of any kind in any medium regarding these lawsuits or disparaging the character or credibility of any defendants therein.” The order also prohibits the defendants and their counsel from doing anything of that nature.

Both the plaintiff and defense attorneys were also ordered to “remove all blogs or other posts relating to (the lawsuits) from their firm’s website no later than” Friday.

The ruling states that “The right to a fair trial in civil and criminal cases “is one of our most cherished values, and a trial judge should have the authority to adopt reasonable measures to avoid injury to the parties by reason of prejudicial or inflammatory publicity.”

It adds that “orders that restrict public communications about matters being litigated fall within a district court’s prerogative to maintain decorum, effectuate the administration of justice and protect litigants from prejudice.” It cited earlier rulings that touched on those issues, in support of the ruling.

“Before (forbidding) counsel and the parties’ free speech, a court must find (1) a substantial probability that a litigant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that the order would prevent and (2) no reasonable alternative that will adequately protect the litigant’s right to fair trial,” the ruling states.

It adds that a district court judge may issue an order limiting public statements in civil litigation without holding an evidentiary hearing.

The ruling noted that “the same plaintiffs’ counsel serve in each of three related civil cases” involving Ursuline High School. And “since their first filing, plaintiffs’ counsel has posted at least eight separate blog entries to their firm’s website addressing these lawsuits.” It listed each blog, including one that was in response to an Ursuline High School statement regarding the litigation.

“Upon reviewing each entry, the court finds that plaintiffs’ counsel has publicly commented on cases being litigated in federal court in ways that are “a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice,” saying the court “intends to draw potential jurors from Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana counties for these cases if any or all proceed to trial.

“Given the highly public nature of these disputes throughout Northeast Ohio, any person now ignorant of rights potentially implicated therein is either (a) disinterested or (b) living on the moon,” the ruling states.

“The statements in plaintiffs’ counsel’s blog posts create a substantial probability of prejudicing defendants’ right to a fair trial because they risk influencing how prospective jurors assess defendants’ character and credibility.”

The issue of the limiting “public statements, appearances and publications in other press outlets” came up at a Dec. 2 meeting among the parties in a filing regarding a “discovery plan” filed with the court a week ago.

It stated that the Ursuline defendants wished to discuss issues regarding public statements by the plaintiffs at a discovery plan conference among the parties, specifically the blog and social media that updates anyone visiting the sites on the latest developments in the lawsuits.

The Chandra Law Firm provided a rebuttal statement, saying all of the content “complies with” Ohio Professional Conduct rules and “First Amendment case law” and fulfills the law firm’s “U.S. Supreme Court-acknowledged legal-advocacy obligations as advocates for their clients.”

It states that the blog and social media enable the law firm to call for witnesses and victims to come forward, adding that “numerous victims and witnesses have (come forward) since this case was filed on Sept. 23, 2025, with others coming forward as recently as this week.”

The Chandra Law Firm has filed three federal lawsuits naming Ursuline High School and others associated with the school as defendants since September and one lawsuit in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court.

The first lawsuit alleged hazing of an Ursuline football player by other Ursuline football players, while the second lawsuit alleged sexual harassment of a female Ursuline student by an Ursuline football player. The third lawsuit alleged misconduct against an openly gay Ursuline freshman boy. The fourth lawsuit alleged that warnings to school officials about a planned physical attack on a female Ursuline student during the lunch period were not enough to prevent the attack.