When House Bill 1775 was enacted in Oklahoma in 2021, the law prohibited public-school employees from requiring or making part of a course eight specified concepts involving race and sex, including that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.”

A range of individuals and groups challenged the law in court, arguing that its provisions could restrict instruction on subjects involving race and sex.

One of the most prominent national opponents of HB 1775—the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)—now faces federal criminal charges stemming from allegations that it secretly funneled donated funds to individuals associated with violent extremist organizations.

On Sept. 3, 2025, the SPLC joined the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund to file an amicus brief urging the court to strike down HB 1775.

The eight concepts covered by HB 1775 included the idea that “an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex,” that “an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex,” and that “meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.”

In their brief, the SPLC and NAACP Legal Defense argued that HB 1775’s provisions do “exactly what the Constitution explicitly proscribes by impermissibly restricting access to certain ideas regarding ‘race and sex’ in Oklahoma’s public schools simply because they are disfavored by legislators.”

The SPLC brief claimed HB 1775 had resulted in “changes to classroom instruction on the Tulsa Race Massacre” in Oklahoma schools.

“Put simply, the purpose of H.B. 1775 is to deny students the ability to receive certain information and ideas regarding race and racism that the state wishes to suppress,” the SPLC brief argued. “This, in turn, restricts students’ ability to express themselves and meaningfully engage in unencumbered discussions about the role that race plays in this country.”

The legal battle took on a new dimension in 2026. 

On April 21, 2026, a grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, returned an indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.  

According to the April indictment, the SPLC paid so-called “field sources” who “engaged in the active promotion of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website.”

A second superseding indictment, issued in August, accused the SPLC of funneling “at least” $4.1 million to individuals who were “either leading or affiliated with multiple violent extremist organizations” between 2007 and 2023. That indictment charged the SPLC and added former SPLC official Heidi L. Beirich as a defendant.

The April indictment alleges that one individual receiving payments from the SPLC “made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC.”

The April indictment also alleges that the SPLC paid money to “the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.” Another individual who allegedly received more than $70,000 from the SPLC between 2014 and 2016 “led the National Socialist Party of America, was the former director of a faction of the Aryan Nations, and a former member of the Ku Klux Klan,” according to the indictment.

The April indictment alleges payments to individuals allegedly associated with groups including the Ku Klux Klan, United Klans of America, Unite the Right, National Alliance, National Socialist Movement, an Aryan Nations-affiliated motorcycle club, National Socialist Party of America, and American Front.

Among other allegations, the August indictment says SPLC “field sources” used the money to grow “existing chapters of extremist groups,” create new chapters, recruit individuals into extremist groups, purchase “materials for cross burnings,” purchase “materials to make Ku Klux Klan robes and hoods,” and create “racist paraphernalia that extremist groups sold at rallies.”

The Justice Department has said the indictment’s allegations have not been proven and that defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The SPLC has denied wrongdoing and defended its use of paid informants.

“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated in a Justice Department press release issued following the original April indictment. “Using donor money to allegedly profit off Klansmen cannot go unchecked.”

“The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups—even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes. That is illegal—and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.”

In Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond, Oklahoma defended HB 1775 against claims that its K-12 provisions were unconstitutionally vague.

In a Dec. 17, 2025, brief, the state defended HB 1775 against the plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge. The plaintiffs argued that portions of the law were unconstitutionally vague, citing as an example the prohibition on teaching children that an “individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.”

The Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General said the law’s meaning was easily understood, noting that “the State has merely exercised its right to ensure that public schoolchildren will not be taught that people should be discriminated against based on their race.”

“Again, this provision only prohibits teaching that an individual should be racially discriminated against,” the state’s brief declared. “It does not prohibit teaching that such discrimination occurs or has occurred in the past.”

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) filed an amicus brief defending HB 1775, noting the law’s provisions are easy to follow without eliminating all lessons on history.

“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 U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately rejected the arguments put forth by those who claimed HB 1775’s anti-racism provisions would gut student instruction on events like the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre.

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 Tenth Circuit 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.”

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