Federal Court Partially Halts Oklahoma鈥檚 Classroom Censorship Law
OKLAHOMA CITY 鈥� A federal court granted a partial preliminary injunction that will blunt the impact of Oklahoma鈥檚 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 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of Oklahoma Foundation, the Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of a multiracial group of plaintiffs 鈥� including a number of Oklahoma public K-12 school and university students and teachers 鈥� challenging the state legislature鈥檚 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.
鈥淭his ruling is an important victory for our clients and other Oklahoma students and teachers who value inclusive education. HB 1775鈥檚 prohibition on teaching banned concepts can no longer be applied in college classrooms, and K-12 teachers are now safe from the act鈥檚 most confusing restrictions,鈥� said Emerson Sykes, staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淲e look forward to the court permanently striking down this unconstitutional classroom censorship law.鈥�
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 鈥� subsections (c) and (d) 鈥� 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.
鈥淲e 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,鈥� said Megan Lambert, 老澳门开奖结果 of Oklahoma Foundation legal director. 鈥淲e will continue to defend Oklahoma鈥檚 students and teachers from politically motivated censorship and racial discrimination.鈥�
鈥淛udge 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,鈥� 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 鈥渋mplicit bias,鈥� 鈥渟ystemic racism,鈥� and 鈥渋ntersectionality,鈥� among other concepts. In the lawsuit, the groups argue HB 1775 unlawfully silenced students鈥� and educators鈥� 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.
鈥淭he 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,鈥� said David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project with the Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 鈥淭he judge鈥檚 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.鈥�
鈥淲e are encouraged that this ruling stymies key provisions of HB 1775 and its unconstitutional censorship in Oklahoma classrooms,鈥� said Sara Solfanelli, special counsel for pro bono initiatives for Schulte Roth & Zabel. 鈥淭his decision is a victory for Oklahoma鈥檚 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 鈥� until permanent relief is afforded, Schulte Roth & Zabel is proud to work alongside the 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果-OK, and the Lawyers鈥� Committee in the continued quest for academic freedom and to invalidate this law.鈥�
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Black Emergency Response Team v. O'Connor
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Black Emergency Response Team v. O'Connor
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, 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鈥檚 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 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he 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.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� 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 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 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鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� 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,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� 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 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 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鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.