Oklahoma’s controversial House Bill 1775 can remain in effect but a federal appeals court has placed important limits on how the law can be interpreted and enforced in public school classrooms. In a divided 2-1 decision issued Sept. 9, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower federal court’s preliminary injunction that had blocked portions of the 2021 law.
The appellate ruling allows OklahomatoenforceHB 1775 while the broader legal challenge to the law continues. The decision centers on the K-12 portion of HB 1775, which prohibits public school employees from requiring or making part of a course certain concepts involving race and sex.
Among the prohibited concepts are teaching that one race or sex is inherently superior to another, that an individual’s moral character is determined by race or sex or that a person is responsible for actions committed by others because they share the same race or sex. The law also addresses concepts involving psychological distress or guilt based on a person's race or sex.
Violationscancarryconsequences for educators, including possible suspension or revocation of a teaching certificate, whileschoolscanface accreditation consequences. However, the appeals court's ruling did not interpret the law as a blanket prohibition against discussing race, gender or controversial historical subjects in Oklahoma classrooms.
Writing for the majority, Judge Gregory Phillips said the law prohibits educators from presenting the listed concepts as correct principles or facts. Teachers remain able to discuss historical events, controversial issues and the views of historical or public figures, provided they do not teach students that one of the prohibited concepts is true.
In practical terms, the ruling means an Oklahoma teacher can still teach about subjects such as the Tulsa Race Massacre, historical figures who held racist or sexist beliefs and modern debates involving race and gender. What the teacher cannot do under the court's interpretation is instruct students that one of the eight prohibited concepts is itself a correct principle.
That interpretation was significant because the plaintiffs argued HB 1775 was so vague that teachers could be punished simply for discussing controversial subjects. The majority rejected that argument, finding that the law's language provides sufficient direction when interpreted according to its plain meaning.
The judges concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prove the law unconstitutionally vague. Judge Nancy Moritz dissented, arguing the majority had effectively rewritten the statute rather than interpreting it.
She said the actual wording of HB 1775 does not expressly require a teacher to endorse a prohibited concept before violating the law. Under that reading, she warned, a teacher could potentially run afoul of the law through classroom discussion or by responding to a student's question.
Moritz said the law should havebeenstruckdownrather than narrowed by judicial interpretation. The ruling produced an unusual situation in which attorneys on opposite sides of the case found something to praise.
AttorneyGeneralGentner Drummond, whose office defended HB 1775, called the decision a major victory for Oklahoma and said the ruling gives teachers greater clarity about what the law permits and prohibits. His office said Oklahoma is the first state with such a law to have it upheld by a federal appellate court.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents plaintiffs challenging the law, viewed the narrower interpretation differently. ACLU of Oklahoma Legal DirectorMeganLambertsaid the court's interpretation significantly limits the law and allows teachers to continue having inclusive and nuanced discussions about race, gender and American history.
The case now returns to the federal district court in Oklahoma City for further proceedings. The appeals court's decision removed the preliminary injunction, meaning Oklahoma can enforce the K-12 provisions while the underlying lawsuit continues.
For Oklahoma school districts and teachers, the immediate message is that HB 1775 is back in force, but its reach is narrower than some interpretations of the law had suggested. The ruling does not prevent teachers from talking about difficult subjects. Instead, the court drew a line between discussing a controversial idea and teaching that the idea is a correct principle or fact. That distinction is likely to remain central as the lawsuit moves back to the lower court and Oklahomaschoolsdetermine how to apply the ruling in classrooms across the state.