Federal Court Partially Halts Oklahoma’s Classroom Censorship Law
OKLAHOMA CITY — A federal court granted a partial preliminary injunction that will blunt the impact of Oklahoma’s classroom censorship law, HB 1775, which sought to severely restrict teachers and students in K-12 public schools and public universities from learning and talking about race and gender.
The decision comes in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of a multiracial group of plaintiffs — including a number of Oklahoma public K-12 school and university students and teachers — challenging the state legislature’s unconstitutional censorship of discussions about race and gender in schools.
With this ruling on the preliminary injunction, parts of HB 1775 cannot be enforced while the litigation is pending.
“This ruling is an important victory for our clients and other Oklahoma students and teachers who value inclusive education. HB 1775’s prohibition on teaching banned concepts can no longer be applied in college classrooms, and K-12 teachers are now safe from the act’s most confusing restrictions,” said Emerson Sykes, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We look forward to the court permanently striking down this unconstitutional classroom censorship law.”
The court enjoined many provisions of the law, holding that they are so vague that it is difficult for teachers to know what they can and cannot teach in the classroom. Specifically, the court enjoined the provision prohibiting university orientations and requirements that address racism or sexism. This means that HB 1775 cannot be enforced in Oklahoma university classrooms during the course of the litigation.
The court also stopped the enforcement of two provisions restricting K-12 instruction — subsections (c) and (d) — because they are unclear, fail to let educators know what course material is prohibited, and could prevent discussions of a wide variety of ideas, including those that are the subject to current political debates, like affirmative action. These provisions cannot be enforced during the course of the litigation.
For the remaining banned concepts in K-12, the court provided guidance for teachers about what material they are allowed to teach. The court further clarified that teachers are prohibited from endorsing the banned concepts but are allowed to discuss issues related to sexism and racism in the course of their instruction.
“We are thrilled that robust and nuanced discussions of history, identity, and culture may return to Oklahoma university classrooms and that K-12 teachers have some much-needed guidance in navigating the law,” said Megan Lambert, ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation legal director. “We will continue to defend Oklahoma’s students and teachers from politically motivated censorship and racial discrimination.”
“Judge Goodwin's ruling pushes our state closer to justice, especially for marginalized communities who have not only been historically abused physically but academically as well. We will continue to fight and convince the court that we are on the right side of the law,” said Anthony Crawford, a teacher who is a plaintiff in the case.
The Oklahoma law lead authors in the state House and Senate declared the intent behind HB 1775 was to prohibit conversations related to “implicit bias,” “systemic racism,” and “intersectionality,” among other concepts. In the lawsuit, the groups argue HB 1775 unlawfully silenced students’ and educators’ speech through its vague and overbroad terms. It also intentionally targeted and denied access to equitable, culturally relevant teaching and ideas that reflect the history and lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color; women and girls; and 2SLGBTQ+ students.
“The ruling represents an important step forward for students and our democracy, which is strengthened when teachers and students are free to discuss the truth about American history and share diverse viewpoints about current events around race and gender,” said David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “The judge’s ruling is a significant first step towards invalidating this law, and the spate of similar anti-diversity and inclusion laws that seek to erase history and harm our multiracial society.”
“We are encouraged that this ruling stymies key provisions of HB 1775 and its unconstitutional censorship in Oklahoma classrooms,” said Sara Solfanelli, special counsel for pro bono initiatives for Schulte Roth & Zabel. “This decision is a victory for Oklahoma’s students and teachers who may now engage in a more open and honest discussion of Oklahoman and American history without the fear of state-sanctioned retaliation. But the work does not end here — until permanent relief is afforded, Schulte Roth & Zabel is proud to work alongside the ACLU, ACLU-OK, and the Lawyers’ Committee in the continued quest for academic freedom and to invalidate this law.”
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Black Emergency Response Team v. O'Connor
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Black Emergency Response Team v. O'Connor
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.