Florida Educators Urge Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to Uphold Preliminary Block of Unlawful “Stop W.O.K.E.” Censorship Law
ORLANDO, Fla. — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Ballard Spahr urge the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to uphold a preliminary injunction blocking Florida’s HB 7 — also known as the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act (Stop W.O.K.E. Act) — from being enforced in institutions of higher education. The Eleventh Circuit previously allowed the preliminary injunction, issued by a lower court, to remain in place until it issues a decision on the case’s merits.
In a brief filed on behalf of a multi-racial group of educators at Florida-based public colleges and universities, the ACLU and its partners argue that the Eleventh Circuit should maintain the preliminary injunction order because the Stop W.O.K.E. Act is unconstitutional and discriminatory. The group is comprised of plaintiffs in the Pernell v. Lamb lawsuit, who filed their complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction last August and argued that the Stop W.O.K.E. Act severely restricts Florida educators from engaging in classroom instruction about certain issues related to race and gender.
“Today we urge the court to uphold the district court’s preliminary injunction order that currently blocks this discriminatory law, which targets Black professors and educators of color and stifles academic freedom on Florida campuses,” said Alexsis Johnson, assistant counsel of the Legal Defense Fund. “By imposing unlawful censorship in public university classrooms, this law suppresses and devalues the voices of people from historically marginalized groups, including Black, Brown, Indigenous, and LGBTQ communities, and denies Florida educators the opportunity to engage in robust discussion that is foundational to their teaching. In upholding this ruling, the court would be protecting and preserving the vital role that truthful and inclusive higher education plays in shaping the minds of our future generations.”
The lawsuit argues that the Stop W.O.K.E. Act violates the First and 14th Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on educators and students, which are also unconstitutionally vague. Additionally, it argues that the Stop W.O.K.E. Act violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against Black educators and students.
“All students and educators deserve to have a free and open exchange about issues related to race in our classrooms — not censored discussions that erase the history of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, and LGBTQ individuals,” said Leah Watson, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “The First Amendment protects our ability to discuss and debate these ideas — even when powerful political interests disagree — and any effort to prevent these discussions violates free speech rights and has a chilling effect on academic freedom.”
“Last year, civil liberties in Florida were protected after the court ruled in favor of our higher education plaintiffs,” said Jerry Edwards, staff attorney of the ACLU of Florida. “Now, we hope that civil liberties will prevail once again. Our collective history includes the marginalized, both the harms done against them and their many contributions to this country. We cannot allow the ignorance of our politicians to trample the right to learn, the right to teach, and the right to express ideas with which the government personally disagrees. The decisions made in this case will impact generations to come.”
“Along with the LDF, ACLU, and ACLU of Florida, we believe it is important to support educators and students in their challenge to this unconstitutional censorship law,” said Jason Leckerman, chair of the Litigation Department at Ballard Spahr. “Its viewpoint-based restrictions are vague and intentionally discriminatory, especially against Black educators and students.”
Florida is one of more than a dozen states across the country that have passed laws aimed at censoring certain discussions around race and gender in the classroom. As a result of the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which imposes harsh penalties for educators and institutions for violations, public colleges and universities across Florida have canceled or scaled back diversity and inclusion trainings and have taken down public-facing statements denouncing racism.
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Pernell v. Lamb
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Pernell v. Lamb
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.