The new rule was and published in the Monday by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, which oversees Head Start. Some immigrants, including refugees and those with a green card, would remain eligible to access Head Start services, but scores of others, including undocumented residents, DACA recipients and those with Temporary Protected Status or student visas, would not. Those on so-called U visas, typically survivors of domestic violence, drug trafficking or other serious crimes, would also no longer be eligible.

An estimated 115,000 Head Start children and families could be impacted, about 16% of the program鈥檚 total 2024 enrollment, according to an

鈥淚t’s incredibly inhumane what they’re doing,鈥� said Joel Ryan, executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start, 鈥渁nd it’s much more far reaching than undocumented people 鈥� not just because there are other populations [included], but it has a real chilling effect 鈥�  it’ll scare a lot of people that might have mixed status, or they may be perfectly legal, but they’re afraid.鈥�

It鈥檚 not yet clear how the new restrictions would be implemented or tracked, and some lawyers and local Head Start leaders are encouraging providers to hold off on any changes until there is more clarity around their legal obligations. This is a particularly tricky moment to introduce such a radical change, experts noted, as many providers are currently recruiting students for the fall.

The new rule was enacted by rescinding a 1998 Clinton administration interpretation of the . That interpretation extended some federal public benefits to undocumented immigrants, which the Trump administration now claims 鈥渦ndercut鈥� the original law, was 鈥渋mproper鈥�  and 鈥渋ncentivize[d] illegal immigration.鈥� The administration has embarked on an aggressive campaign to deport millions of undocumented residents, including by targeting students and attempting to end birthright citizenship.

The updated policy redefines Head Start as a 鈥渇ederal public benefit,鈥� and in doing so, restricts access to early childhood education based on immigration status.

鈥淭his new rule is not only unprecedented in the program’s history, but it’s also completely at odds with the mandate for Head Start to provide early education to low-income children and their families,鈥� said Linda Morris, an ACLU senior staff attorney and co-counsel on the lawsuit.

The administration鈥檚 stated goal is to, 鈥渞estore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded program benefits intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize illegal aliens,鈥� according to an HHS Head Start is explicitly named as one of the impacted programs 鈥渢o ensure enrollment 鈥� is reserved for American citizens from now on.鈥�

At least 12 other federally funded programs are included in the new rule, such as the and the , which provides funds for people with serious mental illness experiencing homelessness.

The department鈥檚 announcement comes after months of layoffs, funding freezes and uncertainty for Head Start, which has reached more than and their families, the majority of them low income, since its inception in the 1960s. the $12 billion program served over 778,000 children from birth to age 5 and pregnant mothers and their families in urban, suburban and rural areas in all 50 states and six territories.

Along with providing early education and resources to kids, Head Start also connects families to community and federal assistance and can help provide a career pathway for parents. The 1,600 local agencies are funded by the federal government, though many also tap into state and local revenue sources.

The program has long been a target of the right, and the conservative playbook has called for its full elimination, arguing Head Start has 鈥渓ittle or no long-term academic value for children.鈥�

HHS estimates the new rule could lead to an increase of $374 million in services for American citizens, but that does not account for the cost to families losing services or to the broader economy as working parents lose access to child care, said the ACLU鈥檚 Morris.

鈥淚t’s important to remember that this new rule is not just an attack on immigrant communities. It’s also an attack on working families,鈥� she added. 鈥淭he social and economic impacts of this new rule will be felt beyond these families 鈥� it will be felt across communities, and really across the nation.鈥�

In May, a coalition of parents and Head Start providers, represented by the ACLU Women鈥檚 Rights Project, the ACLU of Washington, ACLU of Illinois, the Impact Fund and others, filed in Washington state against the Trump administration. The plaintiffs alleged the federal government was seeking to illegally dismantle the Head Start program by shuttering half of the organization鈥檚 regional offices; laying off scores of staff; and implementing 鈥渟weeping and impermissibly vague bans on activities that promote or advance 鈥榙iversity,鈥� 鈥榚quity,鈥� 鈥榠nclusion,鈥� and/or 鈥榓ccessibility.鈥欌��

In this updated application, they also argue that expanding the definition of 鈥渇ederal public benefit鈥� to include Head Start is an illegal attempt to rewrite statutory law, which violates the as well as the U.S. Constitution. They are asking the court to prevent the administration from enforcing or implementing this new directive.

鈥淣o agency, including HHS, has ever defined early education as a federal public benefit,鈥� Morris said. 鈥淭his new rule from the administration is completely at odds with how the agency has interpreted Head Start programs [historically], and the administration hasn’t followed any of the processes that it needed to follow in order to implement a change of this kind.鈥�

The rule will also lead to 鈥渨aves of kids that are unprepared for school鈥� entering the public school system, according to Ryan. HHS鈥檚 updated interpretation does not impact undocumented K-12 students鈥� access to a free, public education, which is Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, although that ruling has also become .

鈥淭hese claims all stand together,鈥� Ryan said, referring to the original lawsuit and this latest legal pushback.  鈥淚 really see it as a cumulative effort to destroy the Head Start program and to make lives harder for very low-income kids and families in the country.鈥�

Two graduate students at Montana State University are asking a federal court to stop the Trump administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from terminating their foreign student status, which could allow officials to immediately deport them.

Officials with Montana鈥檚 largest public universities last week had their F-1 visas revoked and their F-1 statuses cancelled, meaning they could be subject to immediate deportation. Their cases mirrored across the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana filed the motion in court on Monday on behalf of two of the four students, who are anonymous in court filings. Laywers said that both students were sent identical form letters which said their status had been revoked because of criminal status, although neither has been convicted or charged with any crime, leading to confusion and panic.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

The identity and status of the other two students mentioned by MSU are not publicly known.

The Department of Homeland Security has not just revoked the F-1 visa, which is a document that allows a student entry into the United States, it has apparently wiped out their F-1 status, which allows a student to remain lawfully and allows them to be employed in certain jobs, like teaching assistant positions or research. By cancelling the status, the lawsuit argues, the Trump administration has made it impossible for the students to keep employment or be paid.

The lawsuit also points out that cancelling an F-1 visa is not necessarily cause to revoke the student鈥檚 entire status. The ACLU of Montana says the actions of the Trump administration violate the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 guarantee of due process, which extends to residents who are not U.S. citizens, but still lawfully in the country, like the students.

According to court documents, neither student has been convicted of a crime, and neither student has participated in protests or demonstrations.

The court documents also shed light into the inner workings of the moves by the Trump officials to boot foreign-born students. For example, officials did not appear to give either the students or the universities any advance warning. The four students in Montana learned of the changed status after officials with the university system were doing a routine check of the database on April 10.

It is unknown when the change was made, and the lawsuit said the university system officials have had no communication explaining the status change. However, with both the F-1 visa and the F-1 status being changed, the court filing said there鈥檚 little to stop an immediate deportation, and officials worry about due process rights being protected.

鈥淭his policy appears to be primarily targeting African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and Asian students,鈥� the court brief said.

The court filings say that both students fear that years of work and research could be abruptly ended with the decision.

The ACLU has asked for 鈥渆mergency relief鈥� for the two unnamed students so that they couldn鈥檛 be immediately deported, and to have their status restored. Moreover, the lawsuit asks federal court Judge Dana Christensen to prohibit the administration from arresting, detaining or transferring the students from beyond the Montana federal court鈥檚 jurisdiction without providing adequate notice to contest any action.

Students who come to the U.S. under an F-1 status must maintain a full course of study, and have limited options for income, usually related to that field of study. One of the MSU students is a doctoral student in electrical engineering and physics, with a completion date around December, 2025.

鈥淗e has never been convicted of a crime in the United States or elsewhere,鈥� the court filing said. 鈥淗e does not understand why his visa was revoked and his (foreign student) record was terminated. Neither the government nor MSU has provided any additional details or explanation for the change in (his) status or the revocation of his F-1 visa.鈥�

In addition to placing his entire doctorate in jeopardy, the student鈥檚 sister is a graduate student at the University of Colorado. He financially supports her, and according to the lawsuit, the sudden status change has threatened both of their ability to support themselves.

The second graduate student from MSU is studying microbiology, and she has never been convicted of a crime in Montana or her native country.

鈥淭his has placed her in an extremely difficult financial and academic position, as her teaching assistantship is not only her only source of income, but also a core component of her master鈥檚 training,鈥� the suit said.

In addition to violating the Administrative Procedures Act, the lawsuit said, terminating their status already violated the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.

鈥淧laintiffs were not afforded the most basic of notice nor opportunity to heard that was owed to them before having their F-1 student status terminated,鈥� the lawsuit said. 鈥淭he letter did not include any further information as to why (their) F-1 status had been revoked, or how they might seek further information about their specific situations, or even of any available procedures they could follow to challenge the termination.鈥�

The court filing also says that without the federal court taking immediate, emergency action, the students will continue to be at risk, not just of deportation and financial hardship, but that they will have their study interrupted unfairly.

鈥�(Their) due process rights are being impaired,鈥� the court filing said. 鈥�(They) face the imminent risk 鈥� indeed, likelihood 鈥� that they will be unable to complete their graduate studies, that they will be unable to earn an income, and support their families,鈥� the suit said. 鈥�(They) also current face the serious risk of immediate arrest and detention for deportation because they no longer have lawful status to remain in the United States.鈥�

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.

A federal judge in Washington state today President Donald J. Trump鈥檚 three-day-old executive order to end birthright citizenship. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, called the order .” He agreed with the four state plaintiffs that it would cause irreparable harm to those denied their right to citizenship, subjected to the risk of deportation and family separation and deprived of federally funded medical care and public benefits that “prevent child poverty and promote child health,” also impacting their education. A separate federal lawsuit is pending in Massachusetts.

鈥� plus San Francisco and Washington, D.C. 鈥� and several civil rights groups are suing to block President Donald J. Trump鈥檚 move to undo birthright citizenship through executive order, a constitutional challenge education leaders say could transform public schools.聽

Trump, who rode a to a second term, argues that to any child whose mother is unlawfully present in the United States or lawfully present on a temporary basis 鈥� such as foreign students 鈥� and whose father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. 

The move garnered immediate backlash: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. It states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” 

鈥淚f you lose the protections of birthright citizenship and is overturned or somehow ignored, then I think a lot of families would withdraw their children from school out of fear of deportation,鈥� said immigration advocate and policy expert Timothy Boals, referring to the 1982 Supreme Court case which forbids schools from denying enrollment based on a child鈥檚 or their parents鈥� immigration status. 

Conservative forces aligned with the Trump administration have been strategizing an end to Plyler . That potential threat is now being amplified with the affront on birthright citizenship and Tuesday鈥檚 announcement that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are now free to , churches and other once-protected areas. The president has already pledged and a return to .

鈥淲hat that means is more children are denied an education and that’s not good for our society if they end up staying,鈥� said Boals, 鈥渁nd it’s certainly not good for the students wherever they end up going.鈥�

Speaking specifically about the ICE enforcement change, Laura Gardner, who founded Immigrant Connections, a consulting group that works with educators, said the policy will create 鈥渋ntense fear鈥� and could negatively impact student attendance and family engagement. It will also be difficult for teachers, whom she said can鈥檛 do their job when children aren鈥檛 in school. 

鈥淎s educators, we always remind students and families that schools are a safe space and now we can鈥檛 really guarantee that,鈥� she told 蜜桃影视. 鈥淯ltimately, all this is going to do is hurt innocent children.鈥�

About lived with an unauthorized immigrant parent in 2022, according to the Pew Research Center. About 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the United States in 2016, the latest year for which information is available, according to . This represents a 36% decrease from a peak of about 390,000 in 2007.

The president also seeks to prohibit government agencies from issuing documents recognizing an infant鈥檚 citizenship if born under the circumstances he outlined 鈥� or from accepting documents issued by state, local or other authorities acknowledging their citizenship. 

The controversial order could go into effect Feb. 19, leaving children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents, from that date on, without any legal status. 鈥淭hey will all be deportable and many will be stateless,鈥� according to . 

It said Trump has no right to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment, 鈥淣or is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth.鈥�

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups fighting the move, called it a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values.

鈥淏irthright citizenship is part of what makes the United States the strong and dynamic nation that it is,鈥� he said. 鈥淭his order seeks to repeat one of the gravest errors in American history, by creating a permanent subclass of people born in the U.S. who are denied full rights as Americans.鈥�

Romero鈥檚 remarks harken back to one of the Supreme Court鈥檚 most reviled rulings: . In that 1857 case, the court ruled that enslaved people, including Dred Scott, were not citizens of the United States and, as a result, could not expect any protection from the federal government or courts, according to the . 

The ruling, which pushed the nation toward civil war, was essentially undone by the 13th and 14th amendments. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James lambasted Trump for trying to reverse what has been a hallmark of the nation for more than 150 years.

鈥淭his executive order is nothing but an attempt to sow division and fear, but we are prepared to fight back with the full force of the law to uphold the integrity of our Constitution,鈥� she said. 鈥淎s Attorney General, I will always protect the legal rights of immigrants and their families and communities.鈥�

If Trump鈥檚 order is implemented, the U.S. would join other nations that do not allow birthright citizenship 鈥� or greatly restrict such protections 鈥� including and Australia. 

As of 2022, reported that unauthorized immigrants represented 3.3% of the total U.S. population and 23% of the foreign-born population: Immigrants as a whole comprised 14.3% of the nation鈥檚 population that year, below the record high of 14.8% reached in 1890.

At an inaugural prayer service Tuesday, an Episcopal bishop made to reconsider his views on immigrants and their kids. 

鈥�… they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors,鈥� the Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde said. 鈥�… I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear their parents will be taken away 鈥︹��

The next day Trumpand described Edgar Budde as a 鈥渟o-called Bishop鈥� and a 鈥淩adical Left hard line Trump hater鈥� who was not compelling or smart.

A Louisiana law that will require schools to place displays of the Ten Commandments in every classroom is 鈥渃oercive鈥� and 鈥渦nconstitutional,鈥� according to the federal judge who issued an order Tuesday that stops the law from taking effect Jan. 1.

Nine families have sued the state, arguing the new law amounts to the state endorsing a religion and conflicts with the First Amendment.

Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill, who is defending the law that GOP Gov. Jeff Landry signed, maintains the Ten Commandments have historic standing as a foundational document for U.S. law.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

鈥淲e strongly disagree with the court鈥檚 decision and will immediately appeal,鈥� Murrill said in a statement sent through her spokesman.

In a social media later in the day, the attorney general noted the ruling applies only to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and the four parish school boards that are named defendants in the lawsuit.

鈥淪chool boards are independently elected, local political subdivisions in Louisiana,鈥� Murrill wrote. 鈥淥nly five school boards are defendants, therefore the judge only has jurisdiction over those five. This is far from over.鈥�

The new law requires 11-by-14-inch displays along with an accompanying 鈥渃ontext statement鈥� that explains the commandments鈥� role in education. It applies to any school that accepts state money, including colleges and universities. The schools are not compelled to spend money on the posters though they can accept donated materials.

U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, a federal court appointee of President Barack Obama to Louisiana鈥檚 Middle District Court in Baton Rouge, said in his that the plaintiffs would more than likely prevail in their case. He wrote that the law amounts to coercion because families must ensure their minor children attend school.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the organizations representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling 鈥渁 victory for religious freedom.鈥� The plaintiffs include non-Christian and nonreligious families.

鈥淭his ruling will ensure that Louisiana families 鈥� not politicians or public school officials 鈥� get to decide if, when and how their children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, another group representing the plaintiffs. 鈥淚t should send a strong message to Christian Nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation鈥檚 public school children. Not on our watch.鈥�

Defendants in the case include Louisiana K-12 Superintendent Cade Brumley, members of the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and the school boards from East Baton Rouge, Livingston, St. Tammany and Vernon parishes.

The plaintiffs argue Louisiana鈥檚 law violates the long-standing precedent from Stone v. Graham, a 1980 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that overturned a similar statute in Kentucky.

Landry welcomed a legal challenge of the new law before he signed it, predicting the Supreme Court would uphold the measure. He and other conservatives have been buoyed by a 2022 ruling from justices in favor of a high school football coach in Washington state who was fired after praying at midfield after games and allowing students to join him. After the 6-3 decision in Bremerton v. Kennedy, the coach was rehired at the school.

鈥淚 cannot wait to be sued,鈥� the governor said at a June fundraiser for Republicans in Tennessee.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com. Follow Louisiana Illuminator on and .

TOPEKA 鈥� A Kansas elementary school principal who invited an evangelical Christian missionary to pass out Bibles to students during their recess in May violated the First Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas warned Monday in a letter to the district.

Katie Struebing, the principal of East Elementary School in the roughly 2,000-person city of Belleville, invited a member of the evangelical Christian organization Gideons International, Ben Dreesen, to hand out Bibles to students during recess on May 7, wrote Monica Bennett, legal director for the ACLU of Kansas, in the Monday letter. Gideons International is often credited with the introduction of Bibles to American hotel rooms.

Ahead of Dreesen鈥檚 visit, Struebing told staff that she would visit classrooms at the roughly 250-student school to inform students of 鈥渢he nice man鈥� handing out Bibles, according to . A student鈥檚 parents informed the ACLU about Dreesen鈥檚 visit.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

Bennett wrote that Struebing allowed Dreesen on school grounds during school hours, accompanied him while he passed out Bibles to students and involved fellow school district staff in the matter. The principal lent her 鈥渃redibility and authority鈥� to Dreesen, 鈥渋n effect placing a stamp of approval on his message and subjecting students to a religiously coercive atmosphere,鈥� Bennett wrote.

Plus, the principal violated the Republic County school district鈥檚 own policy, which states that district employees aren鈥檛 allowed to use classrooms to 鈥減romote or convey鈥� religious viewpoints, Bennett wrote.

The goal of the letter was 鈥渢o educate and remind the principal and the school district what鈥檚 required with respect to separation of church and state,鈥� Bennett told Kansas Reflector.

The First Amendment and U.S. court decisions require neutrality from government institutions when it comes to establishing or favoring a religion or nonreligion.

Struebing declined to comment, directing the Reflector鈥檚 inquiry to the school district superintendent, Tami Knedler, who did not respond.

This is at least the second incident in Kansas this year involving Bible distribution to students in public schools. In April, Butler County school district employees informed parents they intended to invite Gideon missionaries to hand out Bibles to Bluestem Elementary School students, according to the letter. District officials gave parents the option of excusing their children from the visit if they provided signed permission slips.

鈥淎fter receiving criticism, including from Christian parents, invoking the First Amendment separation of church and state clause, the district walked back the decision,鈥� Bennett wrote.

The public is aware of the law when it comes to religion in public schools, so school officials ought to be aware of the law as well, Bennett told the Reflector. In the letter, she referenced a and a that indicated the majority of Americans do not believe public schools should be influencing religious beliefs.

鈥淚t鈥檚 important to point out that our laws recognize the rights of individuals to worship, or not worship, according to their own conscience, and they have the right to pass on whatever their beliefs are onto their children,鈥� Bennett said.

School districts should respect that, she said.

鈥淭he ACLU of Kansas strongly discourages you from welcoming missionaries on school grounds to distribute Bibles in the future,鈥� the letter said.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. Follow Kansas Reflector on and .

Months after a federal court held that a 2021 state law regulating how teachers address race, gender, and other topics , New Hampshire鈥檚 Attorney General鈥檚 Office has filed an appeal.

In a filing to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston announced Wednesday, the office argued that the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire was wrong to rule that the state law is unconstitutionally vague.

鈥淭he court applied the vagueness doctrine in a way that improperly second guesses the legitimate policy choices made by the State Legislature in setting curriculum within New Hampshire鈥檚 public schools,鈥� read a press release by the Department of Justice Wednesday.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

The case centers around a law, known to opponents as the 鈥渄ivisive concepts鈥� or 鈥渂anned concepts鈥� law, that restricts teachers and other public employees from certain teaching topics and lays out professional consequences 鈥� including lawsuits and the potential loss of their teaching credentials 鈥� if they are found to have violated the law.

Under the law, teachers and government employees are not allowed to advocate that people of one race, gender, or other characteristic are inherently superior to or advantaged over others; that people of one characteristic are inherently oppressive toward others; that an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment for any characteristic; and that people 鈥渃annot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to鈥� their characteristics. The law, labeled the Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education, allows parents to file lawsuits against school districts if they believe teachers are violating the law, and allows them to file complaints with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights.

If a teacher is found by a court or the commission to have violated the law, the State Board of Education can take disciplinary action and potentially rescind their teachers license.

So far since the law鈥檚 passage as part of the 2021 budget, only one complaint has been brought forward, according to the Attorney General鈥檚 Office. But teachers unions and the American Civil Liberties Union say that because the prohibitions in the law are not clear, and because the professional consequences are so severe, the law has had a chilling effect on teachers who feel they cannot have nuanced discussions on race or gender.

After two teachers鈥� unions, the American Federation of Teachers of New Hampshire and National Education Association of New Hampshire, sued the state in conjunction with the ACLU of New Hampshire and LGBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Judge Paul Barbadoro ruled in May that the law violated teachers鈥� 14th Amendment rights because it was unconstitutionally vague. That vagueness applied to both the way in which teachers might interpret the law and the way in which state officials might choose to punish teachers under the law, he ruled.

鈥溾�� Because the Amendments fail to establish 鈥榤inimal guidelines to govern [their] enforcement,鈥� officials are free to 鈥榩ursue their personal predilections鈥� when applying the law,鈥� Barbadoro wrote.

Barbadoro鈥檚 ruling struck down the law; the state is now seeking to restore it through the appeal.

鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision to appeal this misguided ruling underscores our commitment to upholding the right of duly elected legislators to enact carefully considered policy and clarity in our state laws,鈥� Attorney General John Formella said in a statement Wednesday. 鈥溾�� This case is not just about legal technicalities; it鈥檚 about safeguarding the integrity of our legislative process and ensuring clarity and stability for our educators, students, and communities across New Hampshire.鈥�

Oral arguments in the appeal in Boston are 鈥渆xpected to occur in the coming months,鈥� the press release continued.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com. Follow New Hampshire Bulletin on and .

Six West Virginia schools were notified Thursday that policies in their student handbooks may violate students鈥� First Amendment rights by requiring them to participate in certain activities like standing for flag-raising ceremonies and the Pledge of Allegiance and removing hats for the national anthem, among other things.

The notice 鈥� which was sent as to the schools 鈥� came from the West Virginia arm of the American Civil Liberties Union on the 81st anniversary of the landmark legal case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. In 1949, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in that case that students cannot be forced or compelled to salute a flag or recite the Pledge in schools. Policies that direct otherwise, according to the case, are a clear violation of the students鈥� freedom of speech.

鈥淭he Constitution affords protection for Americans to freely express our beliefs and ideas. That protection expands beyond written and spoken word; it extends to symbolic speech as well,鈥� ACLU-WV Legal Director Aubrey Sparks wrote in the letter. 鈥淥ne powerful way that people can express themselves is by choosing to remain silent when everyone else is agreeing, or remaining sitting when everyone else stands. Barnette codified that right. Students still have that right in schools today.鈥�

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

Staff from the ACLU, according to a , reviewed student handbooks for all schools in the state to ensure their policies were compliant with the rulings in Barnette.

Schools that received the letters due to having policies in violation of the law are: Calhoun Middle/High School, Riverside High School in Kanawha County, Summers County Comprehensive High School, Richwood High School in Nicholas County, Sissonville Middle School in Kanawha County and John Adams Middle School, also in Kanawha County.

The policies in the student handbook vary school by school.

Riverside High, for example, that students must rise and remove hats during the national anthem and flag ceremonies held during extracurricular activities.

At and middle schools, the handbooks state that students must stand for the Pledge of Allegiance during class. If they don鈥檛 recite the Pledge, they must remain silent.

The letters sent Thursday urge leaders at the listed schools to review their policies with consideration of the Barnette ruling and amend them if needed to 鈥渆nsure that they meet constitutional obligations.鈥�

鈥淪chools are often the first places that students learn about their civic obligations, their constitutional rights, and the importance of being brave enough to engage in speech that鈥檚 not always popular,鈥� Sparks wrote in the letter. 鈥淭he First Amendment exists to safeguard the diversity of thought and expression, which are essential components of a thriving democratic society. Protecting free speech in public schools is paramount, something that was determined by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. Barnette eighty-one years ago.鈥�

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. West Virginia Watch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Leann Ray for questions: info@westvirginiawatch.com. Follow West Virginia Watch on and .

A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday challenges a contentious new Indiana law that seeks to push speech and course content in college classrooms toward 鈥渋ntellectual diversity.鈥�

The litigation lodged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana asserts that violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The measure was adopted by the General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb in March.

The law requires all Indiana public colleges and universities institute policies that chill the speech of or compel speech from faculty members, a news release alleged.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

The suit was filed on behalf of two professors at Purdue University Fort Wayne. Steven A. Carr is a professor of communication and the director of the Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. David G. Schuster is an associate professor in the history department.

The Purdue University is the named defendant because the state institution is mandated to enforce the allegedly unconstitutional provisions of the law.

鈥淎lthough Professors Carr and Schuster both already seek to foster a culture of free inquiry in their classrooms, this does not mean that they believe it is appropriate to provide equal time or attention to all lines of questioning,鈥� the lawsuit said. 鈥淭hey exercise their judgment and academic freedom to determine when further inquiry on a subject is no longer desirable or appropriate, and they have no way of knowing whether this type of in-the-moment-decision-making will subject them to discipline or other employment consequences.鈥�

Professors 鈥榝earful鈥� of the law鈥檚 penalties

The law in question states professors must be disciplined if they fail to 鈥渇oster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity鈥� and 鈥渆xpose students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks.鈥�

Both plaintiffs assert in the lawsuit that they could be 鈥渃ompelled to speak or prohibited from speaking,鈥� in violation of their First Amendment rights, or risk adverse employment actions 鈥� including not being promoted, having their tenure revoked, or facing discipline up to and including termination.

The ACLU of Indiana indicated the professors are concerned the law could require public college and university faculty to give 鈥渄ebunked鈥� theories equal time in their classrooms alongside 鈥渞igorously studied academic analysis.鈥�

The lawsuit provides specific examples of course content of concern to the two professors.

As part of his courses examining United States history in the post-civil war period, Schuster teaches about the 鈥渃ulture wars鈥� surrounding the LGBTQ rights movement in the 1990s, according to the lawsuit.

鈥�(Schuster) is aware that some academics teach about this movement as embodying the rise of a 鈥榟omosexual agenda,鈥� during which, according to them, LGBTQ people were attempting to indoctrinate students and others with ideas about homosexuality,鈥� the complaint said. Schuster does not believe that 鈥渄ivergent perspective鈥� is accurate, however, and instead maintains that teaching such a perspective 鈥渨ould be harmful to his students.鈥�

鈥淗e thus does not believe he should be required to teach this perspective, and while he has in the past invited students to discuss this perspective during office hours, he does not devote class time to it,鈥� the lawsuit continued.

Schuster additionally teaches about slavery and its legacy. The lawsuit claims the professor does not believe he should be required to teach any number of 鈥渄ivergent鈥� scholarly perspectives on that subject, either 鈥� including that slavery 鈥渦ltimately benefited African American people,鈥� which was once a dominant view among academics in that field.

Carr separately teaches about the Holocaust through his work at the Institute.

The lawsuit emphasizes that 鈥渄ivergent perspectives regarding the existence and scope of the Holocaust exist,鈥� ranging from denial that the Holocaust occurred, to 鈥渞evisionist鈥� accounts challenging the scope and causes of the genocide.

鈥淧rofessor Carr would not teach those 鈥榩erspectives,鈥� but the language of the statute would appear to require him to do so,鈥� the complaint reads.

Another example referenced in the lawsuit describes a course recently taught by Carr about the eugenics movement 鈥� including study of legislation involving forced sterilization passed in Indiana in 1907.

鈥淗e does not believe that he should be required to teach, for example, the 鈥榙ivergent鈥� scholarly perspective that racially based forced sterilization could ever be appropriate or even defensible,鈥� the lawsuit said.

The suit seeks to block the 鈥渦nconstitutional鈥� portions of the statute to protect the free speech rights of the two professors before the law is set to take effect on July 1.

鈥淪EA 202 puts Indiana鈥檚 professors in an untenable position. Through vague language and the threat of harsh sanctions, including termination, the law strips professors of the academic freedom that the Supreme Court has long recognized they have the right to exercise,鈥� said ACLU of Indiana attorney Stevie Pactor in a written statement. 鈥淣o professor should have to choose between their employment and their First Amendment rights.鈥�

What鈥檚 in the new law?

, one of this year鈥檚 鈥� was touted by GOP lawmakers as a way to increase 鈥渋ntellectual diversity鈥� in publicly funded college classrooms.

Although faculty and students overwhelmingly contended the proposal would micromanage their institutions and have a 鈥渃hilling effect鈥� on free expression, the governor , saying it 鈥渞equires free inquiry and civil discourse programming for new students, strongly encourages academic freedom and protects faculty to express differing viewpoints from their colleagues and university leadership.鈥�

The law makes changes to the institutions鈥� diversity-oriented positions and their policies for tenure, contract renewals, performance reviews and more. It also establishes new reporting and survey requirements based on 鈥渇ree inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity.鈥�

Now, Indiana is additionally one of a handful of states that requires boards of trustees to establish diversity committees on campuses.

Under the new law, those diversity committees must make recommendations promoting recruitment and retention of 鈥渦nderrepresented鈥� students rather than the 鈥渕inority students鈥� specified in current law.

Senate Enrolled Act 202 requires a five-year review process for Hoosier education institutions, as well. Even so, for tenure of faculty members.

The law further requires institutions to establish complaint procedures in which school students and staff can accuse faculty members and contractors of not meeting free-expression criteria. Institutions will have to refer those complaints to human resource professionals and supervisors 鈥渇or consideration in employee reviews and tenure and promotion decisions,鈥� according to the law. In limited circumstances, complaints could be advanced to the Indiana Commission for Higher Education.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com. Follow Indiana Capital Chronicle on and .

A group of Montana students, teachers, librarians, and organizations representing school counselors and psychologists filed a Tuesday seeking to block the 2021 law that requires school staff to if they plan to teach or discuss anything with students that involves 鈥渉uman sexuality.鈥�

The group asked a Lewis and Clark County District Court judge to permanently block the passed during and signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte, saying it violates multiple provisions of the state Constitution ensuring rights to freedom of speech and expression, privacy, due process, equal protection and a quality educational opportunity.

鈥淲ithout clear guidance on the issues that fall under the scope of SB 99, teachers, librarians, and others are at risk of discipline if they unknowingly violate this legislation,鈥� said Marthe VanSickle, an attorney at the ACLU of Montana, which is one of three law firms and organizations representing the plaintiffs. 鈥淪B 99 has left Montana schools navigating uncertainty and vulnerability which stifles learning opportunities for students and threatens free exchange of ideas.鈥�

In response, the Governor鈥檚 Office and Superintendent of Public Instruction Elsie Arntzen said they remain committed to the law and ensuring a parent鈥檚 right to know if their children are learning about explicit content at school.

鈥淲hile the governor鈥檚 office generally doesn鈥檛 comment on ongoing litigation, the governor remains committed to preserving a Montana parent鈥檚 role in his or her child鈥檚 education, especially a parent鈥檚 right to know when a child might be exposed to sexually explicit content in the classroom,鈥� the governor鈥檚 spokesperson, Kaitlin Price, said in a statement.

The plaintiffs include the Montana School Counselors Association, Montana Association of School Psychologists, a Billings high school English teacher, a Billings West librarian and teacher, two students and EmpowerMT, an organization that provides training to several districts in the state about how to build more inclusive school communities.

They are suing Gianforte, Arntzen, her Office of Public Instruction, and the Montana Board of Public Education, alleging vagueness is creating abundant issues for educators, the Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ community, and mental health professionals that work with students because the law is being 鈥渨eaponized鈥� to shut down discussions and lessons that some parents might morally object to.

鈥淪B 99 is part of a concerted effort by the Legislature and the Defendants to erase 2S-LGBTQIA+ histories, viewpoints and curricula from public instruction,鈥� the lawsuit says. 鈥淚t is also part of a coordinated effort to create a climate of hostility towards 2S-LGBTQIA+ individuals. In short, SB 99 marginalizes the history, concerns, experiences, and aspirations of the 2S-LGBTQIA+ community.鈥�

The group says the law has led to teachers, librarians, counselors and psychologists avoiding discussing gender identity, sexual health, and even legal decisions in lessons that are not planned in advance so they don鈥檛 risk potential punishment for violating the law. They say nearly three years on, they have received about exactly when they should be notifying parents two days in advance of any lesson or discussion.

The lawsuit says Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ students are also unable to learn more about those communities and that the law also subjects them to being further singled out because of their identities and subject to bullying. It says that students cannot engage in spontaneous conversations in school groups like a Genders and Sexuality Alliance without first notifying parents.

And it says the law is violating the constitutional requirement for quality educational opportunities for Montana students because the restrictions surrounding sex education are not informing students of healthy practices and are paring down their opportunities to learn as much as they wish.

The suit calls the law 鈥渁stonishingly vague鈥� and says the challenge comes in part because the Montana Legislature failed to refine definitions in the bill of what constituted 鈥減roviding information鈥� or 鈥渕aintaining a curriculum鈥� during the 2023 legislative session. Two bills that of the law both died in the process.

And it says that the discussion over the bill signaled a legislative intent to enforce 鈥淐hristian values鈥� in Montana鈥檚 public schools that would violate the state Constitution.

The educators say they have had to stop teaching certain books and topics, that classroom libraries have been shut down, that they鈥檝e had to question whether their mental health discussions with students violate the law and have faced harassment from the community for trying to teach about LGBTQ+ history and rights.

鈥淪B99 gives anti-2S-LGBTQIA+ parents a potent cudgel against any teacher, counselor, school psychologist, or librarian who is dedicated to tolerance, inclusivity, and compassion in the classroom and school,鈥� the suit says. 鈥淎s a result, teachers, counselors, and school psychologists are likely to continue to steer clear or any instruction or counseling that might put them in the crosshairs of SB 99 and its proponents, to the detriment of public-school students across the State.鈥�

For the two student plaintiffs, the suit says the law is preventing Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ students from accessing information about the community and scientific material on sexuality and gender identity. And it is keeping student peer educators from speaking with other students to better inform them about sexual health and relationships, the lawsuit says.

鈥淓very student has a right to access information about human sexuality without censorship from their teachers and without fear they are running afoul of SB 99,鈥� the suit says. 鈥淎s a result of the hostile climate SB 99 has created, R.S. and her peers will go out into the world as adults without the quality education to which they are entitled under the Montana Constitution.鈥�

It contends that school psychologists and counselors have also had to change their practices surrounding what they can say to students, even involving serious matters like suicidality, which goes against best practices for their professions.

鈥淢any of those conversation are, by necessity, confidential,鈥� Montana School Counselors Association Advocacy Chairperson Erica Parrish said in a statement. 鈥淪B 99 places school counselors between the proverbial rock and a hard place: we can either follow our professional and ethical obligations to our students, or we can follow SB 99鈥檚 parent notification requirement. It鈥檚 impossible to do both.鈥�

The lawsuit claims the law violates the Montana Constitution by chilling speech, infringing on the privacy rights of students and educators, and not giving the plaintiffs due process because of its vagueness. It says the law violates the equal protection clause because it disproportionately affects Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ students, and does not afford Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ students the chance to receive a quality education.

The attorneys in the case are asking a judge to find the law to be unconstitutional, to award nominal damages to the student plaintiffs, as well as attorneys鈥� fees and costs.

In a statement, Arntzen, who is running in the Republican primary for Montana鈥檚 2nd Congressional District seat, said the lawsuit was an attack on her because she鈥檚 a Republican who supports more parental involvement in Montana classroom curriculum.

鈥淲oke organizations are once again attacking me because I am a conservative and I鈥檓 standing for parental rights,鈥� she said. 鈥淕overnment bureaucracy doesn鈥檛 own our children. I stand with Montana parents who are rightfully concerned over sexual indoctrination in the classroom. Montana families have the right to know what their children are being taught and the right to opt-out of participating. I will continue to fiercely defend parental rights.鈥�

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on and .

An Ohio House bill to notify parents of any content in state schools that may contain 鈥渟exuality鈥� was introduced before an Ohio Senate committee earlier this month.

Critics likened the bill to Florida鈥檚 鈥�, which was implemented in 2022 and bars classroom discussion for some grade levels on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Republican co-sponsors state Rep. D.J. Swearingen, R-Huron, and Rep. Sara Carruthers, R-Hamilton, brought the bill before the Senate Education Committee.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

鈥淭his is a common sense bill that simply acknowledges the fundamental role that parents play in the life of their children,鈥� Swearingen told the committee. 鈥淚t is statistically undeniable that when parents are involved in their kids鈥� lives, kids succeed.鈥�

During its run through the House, the bill was opposed by a variety of youth advocacy groups, including the Kaleidoscope Youth Center, the Children鈥檚 Defense Fund-Ohio and the Trevor Project, along with some school districts, the ACLU of Ohio, the Ohio Education Association and the Ohio School Counselor Association.

The groups took issue with House Bill 8鈥檚 language, which requires schools to notify parents and allows parents to remove students from classes based on the 鈥渟exuality content鈥� of those classes, and amendments made that LGBTQ advocates said made topics related to the LGBTQ community 鈥減erhaps inappropriate for the classroom,鈥� according to Equality Ohio鈥檚 then-spokesperson Kathryn Poe, during the House committee process.

Mallory Golski, civic engagement and advocacy manager at Kaleidoscope Youth Center said calling the content 鈥渟exuality content,鈥� the bill is 鈥渢argeting LGBTQIA+ youth and even something as simple as a story that they might be reading in English class, if there is a queer character in that story, that can be flagged as sexuality content.鈥�

In the Dec. 5 committee hearing before the Senate Education Committee, Carruthers, however, likened the regulations under the bill to the process that would take place if a child was hurt in the park and an ambulance was called.

鈥淲ho do they call to find out your child鈥檚 medical history or allergic reactions to medications?鈥� Carruthers posed to the committee. 鈥淪omehow, I don鈥檛 believe they would call the school to find out this information.鈥�

Swearingen said the bill 鈥減rotects a parent鈥檚 ability to direct their child鈥檚 physical and mental health.鈥� To do so, the school districts are 鈥減rohibited from keeping changes in the health of the student from their parents, and the school district is also prohibited from encouraging the student to hide these issues from their parents,鈥� he told the committee.

That is part of the problem youth advocacy and education groups have with the bill, saying that opens the door for children to be 鈥渙uted鈥� for their gender identity or sexual orientation, when such information might put them at risk in certain households.

At the committee hearing, the bill received revisions through a substitute bill, which made changes 鈥減er the revised federal code,鈥� according to Carruthers. She said the sponsors had 鈥渂een working very closely鈥� with committee chair state Sen. Andrew Brenner, R-Delaware, on the sub bill.

The bill included definitions for the terms 鈥渁ge-appropriate鈥� and 鈥渄evelopmentally appropriate,鈥� which were modeled after existing federal definitions. Federal law uses those definitions for 鈥渁ctivities or items that are generally accepted as suitable for children of the same chronological age or maturity鈥� or 鈥渢ypical for an age or age group,鈥� according to state Sen. Sandra O鈥橞rien, R-Ashtabula, who presented the substitute bill to the committee.

The substitute bill will continue through the hearing process in the education committee before moving on to a vote of the full senate.

The bill passed the House with a vote of 65-29 in June.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on and .

TOPEKA 鈥� Officials at R.V. Haderlein Elementary in Girard forced an 8-year-old Native American boy to cut his hair, despite objections that he grew it out to connect with his cultural heritage.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas warned the district in a letter Friday that the school policy is both a violation of religious freedom and one that promotes 鈥渞igid gender norms.鈥�

鈥淭he present-day harms of school policies that restrict Native American boys from wearing long hair must be understood in the historical context of multifaceted efforts to separate Native American children from their families and tribes and to deny them their rights of cultural and religious expression,鈥� . 鈥淗aderlein鈥檚 policy impacts Native American students disproportionately and perpetuates a legacy of cultural, psychological, and spiritual trauma and discrimination.鈥�

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

R.V. Haderlein Elementary has a dress code policy mandating that boys wear their hair short, with 鈥渉air not to touch the collar of a crew neck t-shirt 鈥� or extend below the earlobes.鈥� Female students aren鈥檛 subjected to the same mandate.

The 8-year-old boy, a member of the Wyandotte Nation, started growing his hair out after he attended the Nation鈥檚 annual gathering and saw the cultural tradition of men wearing their hair long. A common Wyandotte Nation spiritual and religious practice is for men to grow their hair out, only cutting it when in mourning.

In August, school officials warned the 8-year-old鈥檚 family that his hair needed to be cut to comply with the dress code, according to the ACLU letter. For his protection, the family has chosen not to be identified publicly.

In early September, his mother asked for an exemption to the policy because of his heritage and religious practices but was told this wasn鈥檛 allowed. On Friday, Sept. 22, Joni Benso, assistant principal at the school, sent an email to his mother. Benso said she had noted 鈥渃oncerns about the policy,鈥� but told the mother she needed to cut his hair over the weekend or he would be sent home, according to the ACLU鈥檚 letter.

After several attempts to contact the district鈥檚 superintendent, the child鈥檚 mother cut his hair that weekend under the belief he would be sent home from school every day and potentially suspended, according to the ACLU鈥檚 account of events.

The superintendent, Todd Ferguson, said he could not comment on the case. Ferguson said the district would review the dress code policy during a December board meeting.

The ACLU is now urging the school to accommodate the child and allow for an exemption to the policy, arguing the policy violates the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, the U.S. Constitution, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Officials also advise the school to rescind the policy altogether and allow all boys to grow their hair out.

鈥淭he school鈥檚 discriminatory sex-based hair policy sends a damaging message to boys that they cannot be feminine in any way, and this message harms all students by promoting rigid views of gender norms and roles,鈥� the ACLU letter reads.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. Follow Kansas Reflector on and .

A new Indiana law that critics say will in schools under the guise of blocking conversations around 鈥渉uman sexuality鈥� now faces a legal challenge.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Friday on behalf of a public school teacher in Indianapolis who says the law infringes her constitutional rights.

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb last month signed into law , which requires Indiana schools to notify parents and prohibits human sexuality instruction to the youngest Hoosier students.

Kayla Smiley, an elementary school teacher in the Indianapolis Public School system, claims in the court challenge that the law poses First Amendment violations for teachers by taking away her 鈥渁bility to speak as a citizen on matters of public interest and to speak away from work on matters unrelated to her employment and addressed to a public audience.鈥�

Story continue below.

The complaint additionally argues that the law is overly broad, given that neither 鈥渋nstruction鈥� nor 鈥渉uman sexuality鈥� is defined. 

Smiley emphasized that 鈥渋nstruction鈥� and interactions with students happen both inside and outside the classroom 鈥� making it hard to know when a line has been crossed.

鈥淭he key terms of 鈥榠nstruction鈥� and 鈥榟uman sexuality鈥� are impossibly vague and lack any ascertainable standards for determining whether or not the law has been violated,鈥� the lawsuit reads.

Teacher says law is 鈥榠mpossibly vague鈥�

Smiley said in the lawsuit that she is unable to determine how to conform her behavior to the law so she does not risk losing her license. 

According to the complaint, the teacher has a classroom library in her classroom that contains 鈥渁ge-appropriate books across a diverse spectrum of subjects and concerns, including LGBTQ+ issues, such as biographies of Harvey Milk, and Elton John.鈥� She also has in her student classroom library the book 鈥淎nd Tango Make Three,鈥� which is based on the true story of two male penguins who raise a chick together.

The lawsuit alleges that teachers have 鈥渘o idea鈥� about whether or not such books qualify as 鈥渋nstruction . . . on human sexuality鈥� or whether or not they can discuss any topics regarding same-sex relationships.

Smiley also carries a water bottle in class, in hallways, and before and after school, which has on it stickers and pins supporting LGBTQ+ rights, including one that reads 鈥淭rans rights are human rights.鈥� The bottle displays rainbow flags that are widely recognized as the symbol of LGBTQ+ pride, too. 

鈥淪he is unsure if she is still allowed to engage in this display outside of her class or what to do if the display prompts a discussion in her class,鈥� the lawsuit said about the water bottle.

Smiley is seeking an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect July 1.

鈥淗EA 1608 is written so broadly that it would be next to impossible for teachers to determine what they can and cannot say to students,鈥� said Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana legal director, in a written statement on Friday. 鈥淚n addition, teachers have a First Amendment right to express themselves as private citizens outside of the classroom, including in the school鈥檚 hallways, playground, or before and after school, but the vagueness of this law would certainly have a chilling effect on those rights.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

How the controversial law came to be

The law, authored by Rep. Michelle Davis, R-Whiteland, is reminiscent of Florida鈥檚 鈥淒on鈥檛 Say Gay鈥� law that has been described by some as one of the most 鈥渉ateful鈥� pieces of legislation in the country.

the measure intends to 鈥渆mpower Hoosier parents by reinforcing that they鈥檙e in the driver鈥檚 seat when it comes to introducing sensitive topics to their children.鈥� She said previously that the bill was a response to 鈥渘umerous concerns of parents in her district.

Supporters further say parents have the 鈥渞ight鈥� and 鈥渞esponsibility鈥� to control what their children learn 鈥� and are called 鈥� when at school.

have argued that it鈥檚 part of a nationwide wave of legislation 鈥渟ingling out LGBTQ+ people and their families.鈥� More specifically, they say that the new law could put transgender children at risk of harm if they鈥檙e outed to unsupportive or abusive parents.

鈥淭his session, legislators were determined to target LGBTQ community members and to censor conversation about the LGBTQ community in schools, HEA 1608 was no exception,鈥� said Katie Blair, ACLU of Indiana advocacy director. 鈥淭his bill, like others across the country, was modeled after Florida鈥檚 infamous 鈥楧on鈥檛 Say Gay鈥� law. LGBTQ students exist at all ages and in all grade levels and their stories belong in Indiana schools.鈥�

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com. Follow Indiana Capital Chronicle on and .

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) sent a letter Tuesday urging Michigan鈥檚 public school district leaders to 鈥渢o affirm your commitment to public education, the First Amendment, and the welfare of all students in your community by resisting鈥� efforts to ban books in schools.

鈥淲hen school officials attempt to create a 鈥榮anitized鈥� learning space by eliminating controversial texts from school libraries, they undermine this critical function of public education,鈥� wrote Loren Khogali, ACLU of Michigan executive director. 鈥淎nd when books can be removed based on parents鈥� complaints about the author鈥檚 message or point of view, it paves the way for an unending series of attempts by one group or another to cleanse a school of reading material based on what a vocal faction finds objectionable.鈥�

In addition to Khogali, the letter was signed by ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Dan Korobkin and ACLU of Michigan staff attorney Jay Kaplan.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

The ACLU鈥檚 letter was sent to hundreds of superintendents and school board presidents throughout the state, State Superintendent Michael Rice and Michigan Board of Education President Casandra Ulbrich.

Organized efforts to challenge certain books from school libraries, many of which are books that contain LGBTQ+ characters or themes, have grown since last school year.

A recent from PEN America 鈥� an organization that advocates for the protection of free speech 鈥� found that from July 2021 to June 2022 there were 2,532 instances of individual books being banned in 32 states.

Michigan, which ranked sixth in the nation for most books bans, had 41 book bans in four districts in the first nine months of the 2021-22 school year.

鈥淚n the end, schools become another arena for political warfare, rather than a space of learning for our youth. Neither students nor their communities are well-served by this practice,鈥� the letter reads.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on and .

A spate of policies banning books and tamping down teachings on race and gender proliferated nationwide in 2021 and 2022 鈥� but are those rules actually legal? The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a multi-state effort to find out by challenging them in court.

The approach includes a mixture of lawsuits, public records requests and legal letters alleging the right-wing rules violate the First Amendment and other constitutional protections.

In Mississippi, a letter from the organization helped reverse a mayor鈥檚 decision to withhold $110,000 in funding from a local library until librarians removed LGBTQ literature. In Virginia, the ACLU urged a state court to dismiss a ban on the sale and distribution of the books and 鈥� which it did. And in Florida, a lawsuit litigated by the organization seeks to throw out provisions of the state鈥檚 鈥�Stop W.O.K.E.鈥� law that infringe on college and university instructors’ long-established academic freedoms.

鈥淭hese laws have absolutely no relationship to any legitimate pedagogical interest and, in fact, are purely partisan political tools,鈥� said Emerson Sykes, ACLU staff attorney. 鈥淲e focus on challenging these laws in court.鈥�

To date, legislation limiting classroom discussion of race and gender has been proposed in 42 states and adopted in 17, according to an . Many outlaw 鈥渄ivisive鈥� topics and lessons that cause students to 鈥溾�嬧�媐eel discomfort, guilt, anguish鈥� on account of their race or gender. Some explicitly ban the teaching of critical race theory, a graduate-level scholarly framework examining how racism is embedded in American institutions. The term has become a catch-all many Republicans use to describe teachings about systemic racism.

Right-wing, mostly white parent groups such as and have pushed for the bills, which have been supported almost exclusively by conservative politicians. Those who favor the restrictions broadly argue that classroom teachings about race can serve to divide students and give them a pessimistic view of the country鈥檚 history. They contend LGBTQ material can make students vulnerable to sexual predation, though those claims , and should be under the purview of parents, not schools.

Simultaneous moves to ban books have also spread in response to parent activism. With more than in schools and libraries from January through August, 2022 is on track to surpass 2021鈥檚 count, which was already 鈥渢he highest number of attempted book bans since we began compiling these lists 20 years ago,鈥� ALA President Patricia Wong said in an April .

So far, the ACLU has challenged classroom censorship efforts in 10 states, including three lawsuits against rules limiting teachings on race and gender. In its more than 100 years of operation, the organization鈥檚 have extended across all political ideologies, including defending the rights of the KKK and Nazis to express their views peacefully. 

The number of challenges to anti-CRT laws could soon increase, said Sykes,

鈥淲e are actively tracking and considering litigation in multiple states at the moment.鈥�

Here鈥檚 a nationwide look at what has played out so far:

Oklahoma

In October 2021, the ACLU and affiliate organizations filed a lawsuit, BERT v. O鈥機onnor, challenging a statewide bill that restricts public school instruction on race and gender. As a result of the law鈥檚 approval, according to the ACLU, school districts in the state have told teachers to avoid using terms such as 鈥渄iversity鈥� and 鈥渨hite privilege鈥� in their classrooms, and have removed , and other seminal books from reading lists.

The court鈥檚 decision will have ramifications for Tulsa, the state鈥檚 second-largest school district, which received a in its accreditation status after the State Board of Education found an implicit bias training it administered was in violation of the state anti-CRT law. The city, which was the site of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre that left hundreds of Black residents dead and over 1,250 homes destroyed, had recently doubled down on teaching the dreadful, long-buried episode. The demotion does not prevent teachers from covering that history, but some fear may lead teachers and school leaders to feel as if they are on thin ice.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire is among the 17 states that have passed laws restricting lessons on race and gender. The ACLU鈥檚 lawsuit, Mejia v. Edelblut, alleges that the Granite State鈥檚 legislation is so vague that it violates the 14th Amendment, because teachers鈥� innocent misunderstandings can place their jobs in jeopardy. The state chapter of the National Education Association, one of the plaintiffs, said teachers repeatedly voiced they were confused about what they could and could not teach, and were scared of the repercussions for guessing wrong. Letters to the state asking for clarification, the ACLU says, went unanswered.

Florida

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Florida鈥檚 Stop W.O.K.E. Act in April, tamping down on teachers鈥� and employers鈥� ability to hold discussions related to race and gender. 鈥淲e will not let the far-left woke agenda take over our schools and workplaces,鈥� DeSantis said.

But the law has already run into legal difficulties. In August, a federal judge placed an injunction on the provisions that apply to the workplace. Now, a group of seven professors and one undergraduate student, represented by the ACLU, have also challenged the law鈥檚 restrictions on colleges and universities.

鈥淭here is a longstanding history in the Supreme Court and courts across our country of recognizing the freedom of professors, lecturers and educators in higher education to determine what to teach and how to teach it,鈥� said Leah Watson, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union鈥檚 Racial Justice Program.

Tennessee

In February, after the McMinn County Board of Education decided to remove the graphic novel from the eighth-grade curriculum, the ACLU of Tennessee calling for the board to share the parent complaints it received over the book.

Virginia

After Virginia initiated proceedings to block the sale and distribution of two books, Gender Queer and A Court of Mist and Fury, the ACLU and ACLU of Virginia filed a alongside several independent bookstores urging a state court to dismiss the obscenity proceedings against the two works. On Aug. 30, the court followed that recommendation and dismissed the attempted ban.

鈥淭he First Amendment is clear 鈥� disliking the contents of a book doesn鈥檛 mean the government can ban it,鈥� the ACLU on Twitter.

Missouri

A Trump-appointed federal judge denied an ACLU motion for a preliminary injunction against the Wentzville School District鈥檚 book ban. The ACLU of Missouri originally filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of two Wentzville students after the school district pulled several books with Black, Hispanic, Asian and LGBTQ main characters from the shelves of its libraries. The lawsuit sought to temporarily halt the district鈥檚 book review policy. A trial on whether to permanently ban the district from enforcing that policy is .

Montana

The ACLU of Montana in February filed a public records request after officials in Kalispell, Montana held meetings over whether to ban by Jonathan Evison and Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. The board dismissed the first potential ban and has delayed a decision regarding the second. 

Meanwhile, books were left in the Kalispell book drop in early August. Local police investigated and concluded that the books 鈥� none of them controversial titles 鈥� were mistakenly donated after being used for target practice, but the unnerving incident spurred the resignation of at least two librarians.

Nebraska

In late May, a Nebraska school district three days after the 54-year-old outlet published an LGBTQ-themed edition. The superintendent of Northwest Public Schools, in Grand Island, Nebraska, said the paper鈥檚 final issue was not the sole reason for its elimination. But school board Vice President Zach Mader was , saying, 鈥淚f (taxpayers) read that (issue), they would have been like, 鈥楬oly cow. What is going on at our school?鈥欌��

In response, the ACLU of Nebraska submitted a public records request for all documents and communication records related to the decision scrapping the publication. The district鈥檚 legal representatives have said they are currently . The ACLU also sent a letter to the superintendent warning that the move violated students鈥� constitutional rights and other federal protections.

鈥淭he District鈥檚 unlawful attempts to quash student journalism and student opinions violate students鈥� rights to freedom of speech and equal protection under the Nebraska and United States Constitutions,鈥� said the . 鈥淲e urge the District to immediately remedy these violations [by] reinstat[ing] both the school paper and the journalism program.鈥�

Mississippi

In January, Ridgeland Mayor Gene McGee withheld $110,000 from the town鈥檚 public library, giving librarians an ultimatum: get rid of LGBTQ literature or lose operational funds that had been slated for the building. The ACLU of Mississippi in February responded with a warning letter to McGee. 鈥淵ou have no authority to undertake such measures, and your actions are unconstitutional,鈥� staff attorney McKenna Raney-Gray wrote. Following the letter, the funding was delivered to Ridgeland Public Library.

Idaho

In May, the Nampa School District banned 22 books from libraries and classrooms, including by Khaled Hosseini, by Margaret Atwood and by Toni Morrison. Concerned over a potential First Amendment violation and the possibility of bias in the board members鈥� decision, the ACLU of Idaho in July filed a public records request for all communications related to the board鈥檚 adoption of the policy.

Late Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging the employer portion of Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act, suspending enforcement of the law in the workplace. The Obama-nominated judge wrote in his Honeyfund v. DeSantis : 

“In the popular television series Stranger Things, the ‘upside down’ describes a parallel dimension containing a distorted version of our world. Recently, Florida has seemed like a First Amendment upside down. Normally, the First Amendment bars the state from burdening speech, while private actors may burden speech freely. But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech, while the state may burden speech freely.”

A separate lawsuit filed Thursday morning challenges the portion of the law that applies to colleges and universities.

A federal lawsuit filed Thursday charges that a Florida law designed to 鈥渇ight back against woke indoctrination鈥� by limiting classroom discussions of race and gender violates the constitutional free speech rights of college students and professors.

Florida’s Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees (Stop W.O.K.E.) Act took effect July 1. It prohibits workplaces and schools from requiring training or instruction that may make some people feel they bear 鈥減ersonal responsibility鈥� for historic wrongdoings because of their race, gender or national origin.

But Jerry Edwards, staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida, one of the legal organizations behind the case, said the law unconstitutionally censors the free expression of higher education students and educators.

鈥淭he Stop W.O.K.E. Act is a shameful result of propaganda and fearmongering,鈥� he said in a statement. 鈥淎 free state does not seek to curtail the inalienable right to free expression in its college and university classrooms.鈥�

The Florida Department of Education did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Florida is one of 17 states that have sought to restrict how educators cover topics related to race and gender, according to a . 

However, it鈥檚 the only state that applies its censorship law to higher education, said Leah Watson, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union鈥檚 Racial Justice Program.

鈥淭here is a longstanding history in the Supreme Court and courts across our country of recognizing the freedom of professors, lecturers and educators in higher education to determine what to teach and how to teach it,鈥� she told 蜜桃影视. 

Seven Florida professors and one undergraduate are named as plaintiffs, represented by the national ACLU, ACLU of Florida, NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the law firm of Ballard Spahr. The suit names the state university system鈥檚 board of governors and several other officials as defendants. It requests an injunction seeking an immediate halt to enforcement of the bill in colleges and universities.

Plaintiff Russell Almond is an associate professor teaching statistics at Florida State University and covers how to use race as a variable in empirical research. Provisions in the Stop W.O.K.E. Act that prohibit educators from presenting 鈥渃olorblind鈥� ideologies as racist put his teachings in jeopardy, the lawsuit charges.

Another professor, Dana Thompson Dorsey, will teach a course in 鈥淐ritical Race Studies: Research, Policy and Praxis鈥� at the University of South Florida this school year. She fears that explaining how racism is embedded in American institutions 鈥� a central aspect of the scholarly framework 鈥� could put her in violation of the law. While the Sunshine State does not explicitly ban Critical Race Theory, Gov. Ron DeSantis鈥檚 office has said the law is intended to .

鈥淚n Florida, we will not let the far-left woke agenda take over our schools and workplaces. There is no place for indoctrination or discrimination in Florida,鈥� DeSantis said after he signed the bill into law in April.

The act forces many educators to present foundational principles of their disciplines in a 鈥渇alse light,鈥� presenting them as 鈥渄isputed when it鈥檚 honestly not,鈥� said Watson. 

Plaintiff Johana Dauphin, a senior at Florida State University, worries that she will be ill prepared for graduate school if the law interferes with her professors鈥� ability to convey key understandings that students in other states receive.

鈥淚 fear that this law will cause my professors to avoid discussing race and gender altogether, which will result in my perspective and lived experience as a Black, female student being effectively minimized and erased in the classroom,鈥� said Dauphin. 鈥淎s a student, I deserve to see myself and the issues that impact me 鈥� including issues around race and gender 鈥� reflected in my classroom discussions.鈥�

Thursday鈥檚 filing marks the third lawsuit the ACLU has brought against a statewide censorship law. Similar cases in Oklahoma and have yet to be decided.

A previous legal challenge seeking to prevent the Stop W.O.K.E. Act from taking effect was dismissed by a federal judge in June. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker clarified in a 23-page order that he was not 鈥渄etermining whether the challenged regulations are constitutional, morally correct or good policy.鈥� Rather, the four plaintiffs 鈥� two professors, a student and a diversity, equity and inclusion consultant 鈥� .

Other lawsuits challenging the Florida law remain undecided. At an early August hearing, Walker appeared to arguments leveled against the state by several businesses, including a Ben & Jerry鈥檚 franchise. The federal judge emphasized the vagueness of a particular section that labels training discriminatory if it causes an employee to believe a person of 鈥渙ne race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex or national origin.鈥�

鈥淎pparently, I鈥檓 a person of below-average intelligence, because I have no idea what that means,鈥� said Walker.

John Ohlendorf, an attorney representing the state, defended the provisions: 鈥淭he state of Florida has a compelling interest in preventing employers from forcing employees to listen to speech that suggests one race is inherently superior to another.鈥�

The case brought Thursday is 鈥渇ramed differently鈥� than prior challenges, Watson said. It has yet to be assigned, but it鈥檚 possible Walker could be the one to review it. Should that happen, the ACLU hopes for a speedy ruling, as he has moved in a matter of weeks on previous decisions around the bill. 

鈥淲e鈥檙e confident the Stop W.O.K.E. Act unconstitutionally infringes upon academic freedom and students鈥� right to learn,鈥� said Watson. 鈥淚’m not able to comment predicting what the court may say.鈥�

It isn鈥檛 true. 

In fact, county juvenile court data tell a completely different story 鈥� one in which police actually carried out nearly 500 arrests in Pittsburgh schools that year, disproportionately against Black students and children with disabilities, often for minor offenses. That鈥檚 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which found that school districts in Allegheny County had dramatically underreported interactions between kids and cops to the U.S. Department of Education. Student arrest rates in the county exceeded the state average, the ACLU analysis found, and among the county鈥檚 43 districts, Pittsburgh Public Schools played an outsized role in shuffling children from campuses into the criminal justice system. 

The underreporting combined with the high student arrest rates, the report argues, raise serious questions about whether Black students and those with disabilities, who are disproportionately subjected to school-based arrests in Pennsylvania and nationally, receive 鈥渢he protections from discrimination guaranteed by law.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

School leaders 鈥渉ave to realize that connecting young people to the justice system is harmful鈥� and understand that 鈥渉ow educators choose to deal with students is a responsibility that they have,鈥� said report co-author Harold Jordan, the nationwide education equity coordinator at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. 

鈥淭he conversation is really about the harms to Black children鈥� Jordan said, and while the Pittsburgh district 鈥渄oes not want to be seen as anti-Black or insensitive to the concerns of Black parents,鈥� leaders have failed to adopt sufficient student interventions that don鈥檛 involve the criminal justice system, he said. 

The Pittsburgh district attributed the underreporting of its data to the federal government to an error. After taking heat for racial disparities in arrests, school leaders in 2020 to study arrest data and created a task force focused on improving school safety. 

The U.S. Department of Education did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Outside southwest Pennsylvania, federal education data suggest the issue of underreporting student arrests is widespread nationally. The Education Department鈥檚 is key to enforcing federal civil rights laws, but advocacy groups say inconsistencies and underreporting by local districts could weaken its utility.

School policing has become increasingly fraught in recent years, and dozens of districts cut ties with local law enforcement after a Minneapolis cop murdered George Floyd in 2020. Yet in the wake of destabilizing pandemic-induced campus closures, schools across the country have in student misbehavior, including fights and weapons possession, and some districts have beefed up campus police to combat the mayhem.

By underreporting campus arrests, however, districts could give parents an inaccurate picture of campus safety and the effects of school-based police on the young people who interact with them. 

鈥淭he harms of having police in schools are much more widespread than districts report,鈥� said Jordan, who called Allegheny County a 鈥渉ot spot鈥� nationally for youth arrests. During the 2018-19 school year, Pittsburgh students were arrested at nearly eight times the state rate, the ACLU found. 

Black and disabled youth face the brunt of arrests

Attorney Kara Dempsey, who represents children in education and juvenile delinquency matters, knows firsthand the long-lasting effects of school-based police on Allegheny County youth 鈥� especially Black girls. 

In one instance, a middle school girl who said she took her teacher鈥檚 credit card as a joke ended up getting arrested, Dempsey said. Due to probation violations, she wound up in a secure detention facility. Youth often struggle to comply with probation guidelines, Dempsey said, and school-based arrests can then grow into a yearslong cycle of juvenile justice involvement.

鈥淏ecause she has trauma, she runs from these facilities,鈥� said Dempsey, a supervising attorney at the . 鈥淭hat just continues this cycle. It鈥檚 just really insane.鈥�

Local activists have been sounding the alarm for several years. In a 2020 report, the local Black Girls Equity Alliance found Pittsburgh school district police were the for Black girls, accounting for a third of all referrals countywide. Black girls in Allegheny County were referred to the juvenile justice system at a rate 10 times higher than white girls, researchers found. 

In response, a consultant group, RMC Research Corporation, to study the drivers of school-based arrests. Black students accounted for about 80 percent of district arrests, RMC found in its report, but just 53 percent of the student population. 

Part of the problem can be explained by in which adults view them 鈥渁s more culpable, less innocent and less in need of help and support鈥� than their white classmates, said Sara Goodkind, an associate professor of social work at the University of Pittsburgh who helps lead the equity alliance鈥檚 juvenile justice work. 

鈥淭hese really high rates of referrals of Black youth are not because there鈥檚 a problem with young people. It鈥檚 that there鈥檚 a problem with the adults who are responding to them and with the systems we have in place,鈥� she said. 

The number of police officers stationed inside public schools has grown exponentially in the last few decades, and research suggests their presence precedes an increase in student arrests. More than two-thirds of public middle and high schools had at least one school-based officer during the 2017-18 school year, according to the most recent federal data, and while suspensions and expulsions have declined in recent years, arrests have grown. 

Police presence has long been bolstered by high-profile yet statistically rare mass school shootings, yet research is mixed on their ability to improve campus safety and civil rights groups have often warned their presence could do more harm than good. 

To better understand student arrests in Pittsburgh, ACLU researchers analyzed data reported to the federal and state government, as well as internal district figures obtained through public records requests and those produced by the RMC Research Corporation. The results were perplexing, Jordan said, because each source produced different numbers. 

During the 2017-18 school year, the Pittsburgh district reported 86 arrests and 395 law enforcement referrals to the state education department. That same school year, the district reported zero arrests to the U.S. Department of Education while the county juvenile court tallied 499 school-related arrests. 

鈥淔or a district in which the arrest rates have been high for a very long time, why should they be so inaccurate,鈥� Jordan asked. 鈥淚 can鈥檛 speak to intentionality, but they are in the position to know that what they have put out to the public is inaccurate. They are well aware of that.鈥�

During the 2017-18 school year, Black children made up 15 percent of the country鈥檚 students but 31.6 percent of those reportedly arrested at school, according to the most recent federal data. Black students with disabilities accounted for just 2.3 percent of the total student population but 9.1 percent of those subjected to arrests. 

In Allegheny County, the racial disparities were far starker: During the 2018-19 school year, Black students were arrested nearly nine times more often than their white classmates, according to juvenile court records. That year, 1 in 51 Black boys and 1 in 69 Black girls were arrested at school compared to 1 in 316 white boys and 1 in 894 white girls. Black girls were the only demographic group where more than half of juvenile arrests stemmed from school incidents. 

鈥淭he numbers speak from themselves,鈥� Dempsey said. 鈥淭here鈥檚 obviously bias in decision-making from people in power who have the ability to decide whether to either charge these individuals or not.鈥�

Racial disparities were most severe in the 1,500-student South Allegheny School District, where a quarter of Black middle and high school students were arrested during the 2017-18 school year. 

ACLU researchers found about half of arrests countywide were for simple assault or for drug charges, primarily involving small amounts of marijuana. 

The drivers of racial disparities in student arrests and other forms of discipline, including suspensions and expulsions, have long been the subject of research and passionate debate. One study, , attributed nearly half of the discipline gap between Black and white students to actions by teachers, suggesting that the 鈥渄ifferences in punishment may be due to racial bias.鈥� Just 9 percent of the disparities could be explained by differences in behaviors between Black and white children, researchers found. 

Ted Dwyer, the Pittsburgh district鈥檚 chief accountability officer, said in a statement the arrest data it reported to the Education Department was inaccurate 鈥渄ue to an employee illness鈥� that hindered fact-checking but didn鈥檛 learn about the problem until it was too late to submit a correction. He said the district has worked to improve data reporting processes, including those related to student arrests.

Dwyer said school police 鈥渉ave demonstrated their commitment to working with the school staff to curtail arresting students,鈥� and noted that arrest rates have dropped in the last several years. However, he said arrest rates have decreased more quickly for white students than their Black classmates, therefore making the disparities even larger.

鈥淭he district has convened a task force to conduct deep listening sessions, review of the School Safety Manual and evaluate the effectiveness of current school safety and well-being,鈥� he said in the statement. 鈥淭he group continues its work.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Questionable zeros reported nationally 

By matching education data to juvenile court records, Jordan and his co-author Ghadah Makoshi, a community advocate at the civil rights group, took an unconventional and labor-intensive approach to expose the extent of school-based arrests across Allegheny County. School districts don鈥檛 generally compare their data against the figures collected by juvenile courts, Jordan said. 

On a few occasions, journalists have done similar investigations. In , The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky, found that the local school district failed to report hundreds of arrests to the state. In 2020, Illinois Public Media reporters found that had underreported student arrests to the U.S. Department of Education for years. 

The issue plagues districts across the country. reported zero school-related arrests during the 2015-16 year, according to a report released in 2020 by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, a figure that suggested 鈥渁 widespread failure by districts to report data on school policing despite the requirements of federal law.鈥�

Three of the country鈥檚 10 largest school districts 鈥� including those in New York City and Chicago, , according to a recent analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit news outlet. Yet in New York City, for example, police department records that year.

For years, the federal Civil Rights Data Collection has faced scrutiny for offering incomplete data on highly sensitive topics other than school-based police, including on instances of sexual misconduct and educators鈥� use of physical restraints. In , the Government Accountability Office found that 70 percent of school districts reported zero seclusion and restraint incidents during the 2015-16 school year but the U.S. Department of Education lacked tools to fact-check the data鈥檚 accuracy. The department鈥檚 quality control processes, the government watchdog found, were 鈥渓argely ineffective or do not exist.鈥�

Advocates combating sex-based discrimiation have long accused districts of underreporting campus misconduct. In an analysis of federal civil rights data from the 2015-16 school year, the nonprofit American Association of University Women found that serving students in grades 7 to 12 reported zero incidents of sex-based harassment or bullying. 

Given the data鈥檚 role in enforcing civil rights laws, Jordan said the U.S. Department of Education should be more aggressive in ensuring the numbers are reliable. With better data, he said, researchers can better understand the impact of police in schools. 

鈥淭he data doesn鈥檛 answer the whole question,鈥� he said, 鈥渂ut it gives you the opportunity to drill down, to see what can be changed to improve the overall school environment without involving police and the criminal justice system.鈥�

The cases arrive as schools have become a culture war flashpoint in a nation divided over its pandemic response and reckonings with racism past and present.

Classroom coronavirus safety measures such as masking requirements and teacher vaccine mandates have , and in some cases, even violence 鈥� with reports of .

Meanwhile, local school boards have become the of superheated debates over the perceived encroachment of critical race theory into U.S. curricula, spurring conservative takeovers that have led to the departure of .

Tensions have escalated so high that the National School Board Association urged the Biden administration to protect school leaders who faced 鈥�an immediate threat鈥� from what they called 鈥渄omestic terrorism.鈥� The group on Friday for the letter鈥檚 strong language, but their initial message was enough to prompt the U.S. Department of Justice to mobilize the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Attorneys鈥� Offices to combat the spike in harassment.

With the politics of school policymaking red hot, here are three key upcoming education cases to watch:

1 ACLU sues Oklahoma over its CRT teaching ban, arguing the law restricts educators鈥� and students鈥� free speech

On Oct. 19, a group of educators and civil rights groups 鈥� backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Oklahoma 鈥� challenging an 鈥嬧�婳klahoma rule that restricts public school teachings on race and gender issues.

The organizations allege that violates students鈥� and teachers鈥� right to free speech, tamping down on classroom discussions of race and gender for political motives. The suit also argues that the state has committed a 14th Amendment violation, because the legislation is so vague that it places teachers鈥� jobs in jeopardy if they misunderstand its clauses.

The Oklahoma law, which took effect in May, prohibits classroom activities that would make a student feel 鈥渂y virtue of his or her race or sex, (he or she) bears responsibility for actions committed in the past.鈥� Observers described the rule as an 鈥�.鈥�

Though the bill text does not expressly mention critical race theory, the state legislature quickly took up and passed the law while a wave of similar legislation swept through Republican-held statehouses nationwide, some of which did explicitly prohibit CRT.

Critical race theory is not an ideology, experts have previously told 蜜桃影视, but a scholarly framework that views racism and inequality as ingrained in law and society. However, right-wing politicians and pundits frequently use the phrase as a catch-all term for any classroom content dealing with race.

As a result of the law鈥檚 approval, according to the ACLU, school districts in the state have told teachers to avoid using terms such as 鈥渄iversity鈥� and 鈥渨hite privilege鈥� in their classrooms, and have removed To Kill a Mockingbird, Raisin in the Sun and other seminal books from reading lists.

Because a total of , the Oklahoma lawsuit could prove the first of many challenges to curricular prohibitions, legal experts say, providing a bellwether for future cases.

2 Parent claims discrimination against the unvaccinated as Los Angeles mandates COVID-19 shots for eligible students

On Oct. 8, the Los Angeles Unified School District was for its requirement that students eligible to receive coronavirus shots be vaccinated in order to attend school in person.

The parent, who was not named in the suit, alleged that COVID immunizations are too new to be mandated for young people, and that the district鈥檚 policy discriminates against unvaccinated children by denying them the right to an equal education.

Students ages 12 and up in the nation鈥檚 second-largest district must be fully immunized by Dec. 19, according to LAUSD policy. Those who fail to comply will need to enroll in an online schooling alternative called independent study to remain in the school system.

Just down the coast in San Diego, a parallel lawsuit with near-identical language and prepared by the same law firm was also against the 121,000-student district, which requires students 16 and up to receive shots by Dec. 20.

Other California school systems and Culver City, as well as Hoboken, New Jersey, have also instituted COVID vaccine mandates for eligible students, and Washington, D.C. is . In early October, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that coronavirus vaccines will be required for all eligible students in the state, though the rule will .

The twin cases will provide a litmus test for whether student vaccine mandates, which legal experts have told 蜜桃影视 may be vulnerable to lawsuits, hold up in court 鈥� all while shots for even younger children, ages 5 to 11, are on the verge of authorization.

3 Texas top court halts San Antonio teacher coronavirus vaccine mandate, case moves to Fourth Court of Appeals聽

Hours before a teacher COVID vaccine mandate was set to take effect in San Antonio, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion Oct. 14 that the district鈥檚 policy, delivering a brief win to Gov. Greg Abbott, who has in the state via executive order.

A more final ruling on the state鈥檚 request for an injunction against the mandate will soon come from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio. The Texas Supreme Court , in the words of its authors, was issued only to 鈥減reserve the status quo鈥� until the appeals court settles the matter.

School districts across the country have enacted coronavirus vaccine requirements for school staff, including over one-third of the nation鈥檚 500 largest school systems, but San Antonio Independent School District is the only Texas district so far to attempt such a policy in opposition to Abbott鈥檚 ban.

What the appeals court decides regarding San Antonio鈥檚 rule may prove an arbiter of whether blue cities in hyper-red states will be allowed to follow through on implementing their chosen COVID safety measures amid opposition from state lawmakers.

On Oct. 19, a group of educators and civil rights groups backed by the ACLU sued the state of Oklahoma over , alleging that the law violates students鈥� and teachers鈥� right to free speech by tamping down on classroom discussions of race and gender. 

鈥淭here is a pretty good chance that students can show their First Amendment rights have been violated,鈥� Frank LoMonte, director of the University of Florida鈥檚 Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, told 蜜桃影视.

The Oklahoma law, which took effect in May, prohibits teaching that anyone is 鈥渋nherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,鈥� or that students should feel 鈥渂y virtue of his or her race or sex, (he or she) bears responsibility for actions committed in the past.鈥� Observers described the rule as an 鈥�.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Though the bill text does not expressly mention critical race theory, the state legislature quickly took up and passed the law while a wave of similar legislation swept through Republican-held statehouses nationwide, some of which did explicitly prohibit CRT. 

Critical race theory is not an ideology, but a lens of thinking that considers how political institutions may perpetuate structural inequities, experts previously explained to 蜜桃影视.

As a result of the law鈥檚 approval, according to the ACLU, school districts in the state have told teachers to avoid using terms such as 鈥渄iversity鈥� and 鈥渨hite privilege鈥� in their classrooms, and have removed To Kill a Mockingbird, Raisin in the Sun and other seminal books from reading lists.

When schools restrict academic content, it can amount to a First Amendment violation if the court concludes that the censorship was politically motivated, said LoMonte, referencing a 1982 Supreme Court precedent in a case over . The ruling established students鈥� right to receive information, he explained, but also gives school boards some latitude in choosing to pull books.

鈥淚f the complaint is right, that classic books like To Kill a Mockingbird are being removed from the curriculum for no reason other than political ideology,鈥� said the legal expert, 鈥渢hen that is a First Amendment injury to the students.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Bill sponsor Oklahoma Rep. Kevin West, however, does not believe that H.B. 1775 contributes to classroom censorship.

鈥淭he law ensures that all history is taught in schools without shaming the children of today into blaming themselves for problems of the past, as radical leftists would prefer,鈥� he wrote in an email to 蜜桃影视. 鈥淭he legal complaint is full of half-truths, and in some cases blatant lies.鈥�

West did not specify which of the case鈥檚 arguments he considered inaccurate, and did not respond to questions asking whether he had intended for the bill to result in book bannings.

Plaintiff Regan Killacky, a public school teacher in Edmond, a city on the northern edge of the Oklahoma City metropolitan area, said he was instructed to steer clear of certain concepts and phrases in his curriculum, and is no longer allowed to engage his students in educational conversations on race and gender.

鈥淗.B. 1775 limits my ability to teach an inclusive and complete history within the walls of my classroom, ultimately restricting the exact type of learning environment all young people deserve 鈥� one free from censorship or discrimination,鈥� said Killacky.

Discussions on race in Oklahoma schools are especially important, advocates say, because of incidents of racial violence in the state鈥檚 past, including the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. In a larger effort to grapple with 鈥渉ard history,鈥� Tulsa Public Schools began teaching that episode more comprehensively last spring, weeks after H.B. 1775 was signed into law.

In addition to free speech claims, the ACLU lawsuit also argues that the state has committed a 14th Amendment violation because of the vagueness of the legislation. Innocent misunderstandings, says the legal team, can place teachers鈥� jobs in jeopardy. 

鈥淗.B. 1775 is so poorly drafted 鈥� in places it is literally indecipherable 鈥� that districts and teachers have no way of knowing what concepts and ideas are prohibited,鈥� said Emerson Sykes, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

including Oklahoma have enacted laws to restrict teaching on race and gender, according to a tracker from Education Week, many using near-identical wordings.

With similar legislation in force across the country, LoMonte doubts the case against the Sooner State will be the last of its kind.

鈥淚鈥檓 sure more lawsuits are coming,鈥� he said.