Both sides appealing federal judge's ruling on law banning teaching some racial, gender topics

A federal judge’s ruling that limits enforcement of House Bill 1775, banning the teaching of certain racial and gender topics in Oklahoma classrooms, is being appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – by both sides.

Attorneys for the defendants in the case – including Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, Gov. Kevin Stitt, state schools Superintendent Ryan Walters and members of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, members of the state Board of Education and members of the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents – filed a court document Monday indicating their intent to appeal.

A spokesman for Drummond’s office had no comment on the filing.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the case are appealing U.S. District Court Judge Charles Goodwin’s decision to deny their request for a preliminary injunction to be issued against enforcement of the entire law, as opposed to only parts of it.

A look at the legal fight over Oklahoma HB 1775

Stitt signed the bill into law in May 2021, and a federal lawsuit was filed October by the Black Emergency Response Team at the University of Oklahoma and other plaintiffs. They claim the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by stifling speech and discriminating against minority and LGBTQ+ students.

Goodwin heard oral arguments in the case on Dec. 4. On June 14, Goodwin issued three orders, one of which enjoined the defendants in the lawsuit from enforcing the following provision, found in the first paragraph of the law: “Any orientation or requirement that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis of race or sex is prohibited.”

Goodwin also issued an injunction against enforcing two subsections of the law, which read “No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:

• An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.
• Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex.”

Goodwin also ordered the word “require” in the above sentence to be temporarily non-enforceable and prohibited the enforcement of the law’s implementing rules “to the extent they are inconsistent with this order.”

Goodwin allowed other parts of the law to stand, including the prohibition that no school employee shall “make part of a course” the concept that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.”

But Goodwin also found the plaintiffs weren’t likely to succeed on their claims that the remainder of the act is vague, or on a claim the law infringes on the right of students to receive information.

The plaintiffs said in their court filing their “appeal is limited to the District Court’s partial denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the basis of unconstitutional vagueness and the right to receive information and ideas.”

Goodwin’s ruling also dismissed all claims against the Edmond Public Schools and all but two claims against the OU Board of Regents.