Oklahoma’s Classroom Censorship Act is Unconstitutional and Remains a Threat to our First and 14th Amendment Rights
To protect students and teachers from unlawful censorship and racial discrimination, a lawsuit brought by civil rights and social justice groups must be allowed to proceed.
OKLAHOMA CITY — Today, a coalition of civil rights organizations representing multiracial teachers and students pushing back against the state of Oklahoma's efforts to stall litigation in H.B. 1775, a classroom censorship law that unconstitutionally restricts discussions about race and gender in K-12 public schools and higher education.
Earlier this year, in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Oklahoma Attorney General, State Board of Education, and other state officials sought to dismiss the group’s lawsuit, the first federal complaint of its kind against a classroom censorship law. In their response, plaintiffs argued that their lawsuit provided detailed and disturbing facts to support claims that the law impinges on educators’ free speech rights and academic freedom, violates students’ right to information, and is racially discriminatory. The law is also unconstitutionally vague and a threat to our First and 14th Amendment rights.
The brief opposing the state’s attempts to stall litigation was filed by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of plaintiffs the Black Emergency Response Team (BERT); the University of Oklahoma Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU-AAUP); the Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP-OK); the American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian Territory on behalf of itself and its members who are public school students and teachers, a high school student, and Oklahoma public high school teachers Anthony Crawford and Regan Killackey.
“We will not be deterred by the state’s latest obstructionist effort to brush aside the severe consequences of H.B. 1775, but double-down on our commitment to strike down this law that is unconstitutionally silencing important discussions about systemic racism, implicit bias, and the rich perspectives and lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ Oklahoman,” said Genevieve Bonadies Torres, associate director of the Educational Opportunities Project with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Our courageous clients must be heard on their constitutional claims that strike at the heart of our education system, and the very functioning of our democracy.”
H.B. 1775 has caused school districts to strike books by Black and female authors from reading lists, while K-12 teachers and university professors are changing their curricula to avoid discussions about race, racism and gender. Multiple Oklahoma public schools have also scaled back or eliminated their diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings for teachers and strategic plans. These actions illustrate how, if not challenged, H.B 1775 will continue to suppress the speech of Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ+ people and other historically marginalized groups.
“As we predicted when we filed our lawsuit, H.B 1775 creates confusion for educators and students, further marginalizes the underserved and tragically jeopardizes the legitimacy of our entire education system,” said Mary Topaum, director of the American Indian Movement Indian Territory. “Oklahoma should be doing more–not less–to create inclusive environments for all students including Native American students.”
“The longer H.B. 1775 stays in place the harder it will be for the next generation to understand the contentious moments in history that still shape our nation today,” said Anthony R. Douglas, president of the Oklahoma State Conference NAACP. “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.”
“In Oklahoma, we have seen the devastating impact that H.B. 1775 has had on our educators and students as they have endured over a year of fear and censorship,” said Megan Lambert, legal director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. “It is critical to protect their right to talk and learn about race and gender in our schools and to ensure Oklahomans have access to an education that includes the legacy of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, and 2SLGBTQ+ individuals. Censoring education about issues of race and racism hurts all students, especially students from marginalized communities, our society, and our state.”
“HB 1775 is so poorly drafted — in places it is literally indecipherable — that districts and teachers have no way of knowing what concepts and ideas are prohibited,” said Emerson Sykes, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The bill was intended to inflame a political reaction, not further a legitimate educational interest. These infirmities in the law are all the more troubling because the bill applies to public colleges and universities, where the First Amendment is especially protective of academic freedom.”
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 is a nonprofit, non-partisan, privately funded organization devoted exclusively to the defense and promotion of the individual rights secured by the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions. 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 .
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.