Education

Federal appeals court clears the way for Oklahoma to enforce anti-racism law

September 10, 2026

Ray Carter

In 2021, Oklahoma lawmakers passed, and Gov. Kevin Stitt signed, House Bill 1775, making it illegal to teach Oklahoma students that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex” and seven other similar concepts broadly associated with Critical Race Theory.

Several entities challenged the law in court, including two Oklahoma teachers, arguing in Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond that the law violates students’ First Amendment right to receive information and is also unconstitutionally vague.

A lower court agreed with portions of the plaintiffs’ arguments on vagueness, but that decision has now been overturned by the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Each prohibited concept is an unqualified racist or sexist assertion. That means to violate subsection B, a teacher must present the concepts as fact, just as the statute does,” the Tenth Circuit opinion stated. “So a teacher would not violate subsection B by instructing about a historical or popular figure’s beliefs, nor by encouraging discussion about current events and ideas. But a teacher would violate subsection B by instructing students that any of the eight racist or sexist concepts is correct.”

Plaintiffs argued that the law’s prohibition on teachers making any of the eight concepts part of a course was vague and could lead to inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement. The Tenth Circuit majority rejected that argument.

“Whether we read ‘make part of a course’ broadly or narrowly, a teacher would not violate subsection B unless the teacher taught race or sex discrimination as specified in the concepts,” the Tenth Circuit opinion stated. “And a teacher won’t do that by accident.”

Opponents of HB 1775 claimed it would prevent teachers from instructing students about the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, but the Tenth Circuit opinion noted that “under the statute’s plain text, the teacher is free to instruct about the massacre. The teacher is prohibited only from interjecting ‘thus, white people are inherently superior to black people,’ or ‘thus, black people are inherently superior to white people,’ or ‘thus, those of you who are white should feel discomfort, guilt, or anguish,’ and so on.”

The majority noted that HB 1775 simply “prohibits teachers from proselytizing students to accept certain racist or sexist creeds as truth. Apart from any prohibited racist or sexist editorializing, teachers remain free to instruct about historical or popular issues, and students remain free to draw their own conclusions.”

Attorney General Gentner Drummond, whose office defended the law in court, praised the court’s ruling.

“This is a significant win for Oklahoma and affirms a simple principle: every Oklahoma student deserves to be treated as an individual, not defined or divided by race or sex,” Drummond said. “Oklahoma teachers do important work every day, and the court has given them clarity to keep doing it well.” 

Since June 2024, the district court order barred the state from enforcing key parts of the law. Now, under the Tenth Circuit ruling, the state can enforce every part of HB 1775. 

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) filed an amicus brief defending HB 1775, writing that it is “hard to see the District Court’s decision to find certain aspects of HB 1775 unconstitutionally vague as anything other than ‘verbal calisthenics.’”

“Despite arguments to the contrary, there is scarce room for arbitrary enforcement,” the OCPA brief noted. “Either a school taught students they should feel guilt for their race or sex or it did not.”

Had the Tenth Circuit sided with the plaintiffs, the OCPA brief noted that decision would undermine broad chunks of education law in Oklahoma.

“Their argument is, essentially, that because a few teachers claim to not understand the bill that it must be vague,” the OCPA brief stated. “That is not—and cannot be—the standard. If it were the standard, professional educators could have a veto over any new education reform by claiming confusion over the bill’s language.”

And, the OCPA brief noted, HB 1775 does not prohibit teachers from giving lessons about dark chapters of national history. Instead, the law simply prohibits teachers from encouraging students to recreate the conditions that generated those dark chapters.

“No doubt teaching students a complete history and assigning books that discuss sensitive topics create well-rounded students,” the OCPA brief stated. “But there is a clear difference between teaching about racism and teaching students to be racist.”

The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings as the underlying lawsuit continues.