The ruling allows Oklahoma to enforce all of HB 1775’s K-12 provisions while a constitutional lawsuit continues.
OKLAHOMA CITY — A federal appeals court has cleared Oklahoma to enforce previously blocked portions of a state law restricting how certain concepts involving race and sex may be taught in public schools.
A divided three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that challengers were unlikely to prove the K-12 provisions of House Bill 1775 unconstitutionally vague.
The court vacated a preliminary injunction that had prevented the state from enforcing parts of the law while the lawsuit continued. The decision does not end the case or resolve every constitutional claim raised against the law.
Attorney General Gentner Drummond called the decision a significant victory for Oklahoma.
“This is a significant win for Oklahoma and affirms a simple principle: every Oklahoma student deserves to be treated as an individual, not defined or divided by race or sex,” Drummond said. “Oklahoma teachers do important work every day, and the court has given them clarity to keep doing it well.”
What the ruling means
HB 1775 emerged from the national political debate over critical race theory, although that term does not appear in the law. The 2021 measure lists eight concepts involving race or sex that public school teachers, administrators and other employees may not “require or make part of a course.”
Among them are assertions that one race or sex is inherently superior to another, that a person’s moral character is determined by race or sex, or that a person bears responsibility for past actions by others of the same race or sex.
Violations can lead to the suspension or revocation of an educator’s license or certificate.
A federal district judge in 2024 blocked enforcement of the word “require” and two of the law’s eight prohibited concepts, finding that the challengers were likely to show those portions were too vague.
The appeals court disagreed. Writing for the majority, Judge Gregory Phillips said the law prohibits educators from teaching the listed concepts as correct principles or requiring teachers to do so.
The majority said the law does not prevent teachers from discussing the concepts, examining the beliefs of historical figures or leading discussions about current events.
The opinion specifically addressed concerns about teaching the Tulsa Race Massacre. The majority said educators remain free to teach about the massacre but may not tell students that they should feel guilt, anguish or discomfort because of their race.
“Teachers remain free to instruct about historical or popular issues, and students remain free to draw their own conclusions,” Phillips wrote.
Judge disputes majority’s interpretation
Judge Nancy Moritz dissented, arguing that the majority had added language and meaning that do not appear in the law itself.
Moritz said the majority “grafts onto the statute a limiting principle” by interpreting it to apply only when the listed concepts are taught as correct.
Teaching, she wrote, involves more than presenting statements as either true or false. It also includes answering questions, leading discussions and examining connections between historical events and modern life.
Moritz concluded that the law remains unconstitutionally vague and would have kept the preliminary injunction in place while expanding it to cover the entire K-12 section.
Lawsuit continues
The appeals court did not consider the challengers’ claim that the law violates students’ First Amendment right to receive information. The court said the challengers had not established that the panel had jurisdiction to consider that issue at this stage.
The challengers may appeal the district court’s ruling on that claim after a final judgment is entered.
The lawsuit was brought by the Oklahoma State Conference of the NAACP, American Indian Movement Indian Territory, two Oklahoma public school teachers and a parent acting on behalf of her daughter.
The appeals court returned the case to Oklahoma City federal court for additional proceedings.
OK Politics Today requested comment Thursday from the ACLU of Oklahoma, which is part of the legal team representing the plaintiffs, but had not received a response by publication.
