Lawyers' Committee and American Civil Liberties Union Defend Free Speech in Schools in Case Challenging HB1775
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma – On Monday, attorneys from the , the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma appeared in court to request an injunction to stop the further implementation of HB 1775 in Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond. The lawsuit, filed alongside pro bono counsel Schulte, Roth and Zabel LLP, challenges , Oklahoma’s classroom censorship law, which severely restricts university faculty, public school teachers and students from learning and talking about race and gender in the classroom. The plaintiffs argue that such restrictions stifle free speech and discriminate on the basis of race, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Monday’s oral argument comes more than two years after a group of multiracial teachers and students, the Oklahoma State Conference of the NAACP, the American Indian Movement (AIM), Oklahoma Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU-AAUP), and the Black Emergency Response Team (an organization of OU students) filed a lawsuit to block HB 1775.
“This vague and overbreadth law has a profound chilling effect on educators’ free speech rights and academic freedom. It violates students’ fundamental right to information and ideas and is constructed in a manner that is clearly racially discriminatory,” said Maya Brodziak, counsel with the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Our country needs to acknowledge and reckon with its history of systemic racism — this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. Laws like HB 1775 work to deny us from learning the history and lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color; women and girls; and LGBTQ+ people.”
Lawyers argued that HB 1775 is currently being used to threaten teachers with the suspension or revocation of their license in retaliation for teaching banned topics, while schools found to be in violation of the law are at risk of being penalized through the accreditation process. If the law were to stand, civil rights advocates argue that teachers would be barred from teaching basic facts about American history, while students would be denied the opportunity to adequately learn about civil rights struggles. The defendants argued that the temporary injunction should be denied and that the lawsuit should be dismissed.
“For over two years, HB 1775 has left the education of students in Oklahoma in limbo as teachers and professors across the state are forced to guess at what they can and cannot teach regarding race, gender, and sexual orientation,” said Megan Lambert, legal director for the ACLU of Oklahoma. “To this day, we continue to witness politicians’ attempts to erase Oklahoma’s history by discouraging a complete and open dialogue about the heritage and cultures of diverse communities. This has come in the form of threats to teachers' licenses, downgrades to school districts’ accreditation, and bans on library books. Meanwhile, students are unable to obtain critical information about our state and nation’s history, and students of color, in particular, are denied an inclusive education that reflects their own experiences. Today’s arguments enforced our firm stance that all young people deserve to learn a complete history in schools, free from censorship or discrimination.”
“The US Supreme Court has already called public schools ‘nurseries for democracy.’ Laws like HB 1775 undermine that and the goal of developing well-educated and well-rounded students who are capable of discussing sensitive topics and engaging in challenging conversations respectfully,” said Douglas Koff, partner at pro-bono so-counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel. “This case isn’t just important to the students and teachers of Oklahoma, but communities across the country.”
###
About the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to mobilize the nation’s leading lawyers as agents for change in the Civil Rights Movement. Today, the Lawyers’ Committee uses legal advocacy to achieve racial justice, fighting inside and outside the courts to ensure that Black people and other people of color have the voice, opportunity, and power to make the promises of our democracy real. For more information, please visit
About the ACLU of Oklahoma – The ACLU of Oklahoma works to secure liberty, justice, and equity for all Oklahomans through advocacy, litigation, and legislation, leading by example and fueled by people power. Learn more at .
About the ACLU – For more than 100 years, the ACLU has worked in courts, legislatures, and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU takes on the toughest civil liberties fights in pursuit of liberty and justice for all. For more information on the ACLU, visit .
About Schulte Roth & Zabel – Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP () is a full-service law firm with offices in New York, Washington, DC and London. As one of the leading law firms serving the financial services industry, the firm advises clients on investment management, corporate and transactional matters, and provides counsel on securities regulatory compliance, enforcement and investigative issues. The firm also has a long history as a leader in pro bono legal work and a legacy of contributing to the greater good. SRZ embraces its professional and moral obligations to seek justice through the legal system.
On the Frontlines of the Fight Against Classroom Censorship
A coordinated attack on the First Amendment is happening at schools and universities across the country as state legislators silence the voices of...
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
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.