ACLU Urges Eighth Circuit to Protect Students' Right to Learn about Race in School
The courts must safeguard classroom discussions against political censorship
ST. LOUIS — The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU affiliates within the Eighth Circuit, and PEN America filed a friend-of-the-court brief today in Walls v. Sanders, a First Amendment challenge to Arkansas’s ban on “prohibited indoctrination” in K-12 public schools. The law chills full and frank classroom discussion about race. The brief, submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, argues that students have an independent First Amendment right to receive information, including in public school curricula.
As the groups explain in the brief, the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Pratt v. Independent School District No.831, which recognizes students' right to receive information in classroom curricula, has been in place since 1982. Abandoning Pratt would have dramatic and devastating implications for public education, potentially allowing schools to become forums for actual government propaganda and indoctrination.
“Our students deserve an honest and comprehensive education, not one censored by political agendas,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Laws like this undermine the very purpose of public education in a democracy.”
“Students deserve to know the truth about our history and struggle with race and racism, added Holly Dickson, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “Having facts is fundamental for progress toward racial equality and justice. It is especially ironic and appalling that the law could muzzle the teaching of accurate facts about racial equality at Central High School, ground zero for school integration in Arkansas and across the South.”
“The outcome of this case is important to Iowans — who are facing our own challenges when it comes to censorship in public schools with the passage of Iowa’s truly awful law banning books, forcibly outing kids, and telling teachers and students ‘Don’t Say LGBTQ,’” said Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa. “We should all agree that our public school students have a First Amendment right to receive information. We’re proud to join our ACLU partners on this brief.”
“Under the guise of protecting children from so-called indoctrination, laws like Arkansas’s LEARNS Act are a smokescreen for censorship of constitutionally-protected expression and access to information,” said Kasey Meehan, program director, Freedom to Read at PEN America. “All of us who value our Constitutional freedoms should be standing up for the First Amendment and students’ ability to learn about the complexities of American history. Every day that students are robbed of ideas and information as a result of Arkansas’s rights-effacing law is a day they are not getting the education and access to information they deserve.”
Arkansas’s law is one example of the disturbing wave of classroom censorship bills that are attempting to attack students’ right to learn across the country. However, as the brief also notes, the ACLU has challenged similar laws restricting classroom discussions in Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Florida — each of which has been blocked in whole or in part by federal courts. The Eighth Circuit case is likely to be argued this fall, with a decision sometime next year.
The brief can be accessed here: /cases/walls-v-sanders?document=Amicus-Brief
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.