Federal Court Upholds Oklahoma School Teaching Law

A federal appeals court has upheld Oklahoma's controversial classroom teaching law while significantly narrowing its scope. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday that House Bill 1775 appropriately bars public schools from teaching certain concepts about race and gender as if they are facts, overturning a lower court's injunction against parts of the law.

A coalition of Oklahoma students, teachers, professors, and activists had sued to overturn the 2021 statute, arguing it was unconstitutionally vague and censored classroom discussions. The law prohibits schools from requiring or making part of a course several specific concepts.

The Law's Prohibited Concepts

The banned concepts under HB 1775 include teaching that one race or sex is inherently superior to another. It also bars instruction stating that an individual, by virtue of their race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. Also, the law prohibits teaching that any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, or anguish because of their race or sex.

Schools found in violation of the law face a downgrade to their accreditation status. Individual teachers risk penalties to their professional certification.

The Court's Narrow Interpretation

In a split 2-1 decision, the appellate court's majority provided a key limitation. Judges Gregory A. Phillips and Harris L. Hartz determined that for a teacher to violate HB 1775, they must present a banned concept as a fact. "Apart from any prohibited racist or sexist editorializing, teachers remain free to instruct about historical or popular issues, and students remain free to draw their own conclusions," Phillips wrote in the majority opinion.

This interpretation, celebrated by the plaintiffs' attorneys, means the law no longer impedes general classroom discussion on these topics. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, which represented the plaintiffs, stated the ruling "narrowed Oklahoma’s censorship law out of existence by interpreting it to only prohibit educators from affirmatively encouraging discrimination."

A Strong Dissent

Judge Nancy L. Moritz dissented, arguing the law should have been struck down "in full." She contended the majority opinion "impermissibly rewrites the statute" to clarify what she believes is an unconstitutionally vague law. Moritz wrote that the text of HB 1775 does not specify that an educator must endorse a prohibited statement to violate it. She warned teachers could unintentionally make a banned concept part of a course "through discussion, by responding to questions, and in myriad other ways, any of which could violate the law."

Reactions and Next Steps

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, whose office defended the law, hailed the decision as a "significant win" and a first-in-the-nation appellate victory. "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. He added that the court had given teachers clarity.

With the Tenth Circuit's decision on the preliminary injunction now entered, the case returns to the federal district court in Oklahoma City for further proceedings. The ruling from Oklahoma Voice, a nonprofit news outlet, clarifies the immediate legal landscape for educators across the state.