A divided federal appeals panel has upheld Oklahoma's House Bill 1775, a 2021 law that restricts K-12 teachers from presenting eight specific race- or sex-based concepts as correct principles. The September 9, 2026 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated a lower court's preliminary injunction that had blocked parts of the law as unconstitutionally vague. The ruling makes Oklahoma the first state to have such a divisive-concepts law sustained at the federal appellate level.
The law, codified at Okla. Stat. tit. 70, Section 24-157, lists eight prohibited concepts including the idea that one race or sex is inherently superior to another, and that an individual should feel psychological distress on account of their race or sex. The statute allows for suspension or revocation of a teacher's license for violations, with revocation mandatory if the violation is willful.
Judges Gregory A. Phillips and Harris L. Hartz, writing for the majority in Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond, held that the law only prohibits teachers from teaching the eight concepts as correct principles. They wrote that a teacher does not violate the law by instructing about a historical or popular figure's beliefs or by encouraging discussion about current events, but would violate it by telling students that any of the eight racist or sexist concepts is correct.
Dissenting view and circuit split potential
Judge Nancy L. Moritz dissented, arguing the majority had impermissibly rewritten an unconstitutionally vague statute. She wrote that as written, the law gives teachers no clear guidance on how to comply. A teacher could unintentionally make a banned concept part of a course through discussion, by responding to questions, and in other ways, putting their livelihoods at risk, she wrote. She noted that every other court to consider similar laws had found them unconstitutionally vague.
The dissent cited rulings from Florida, Tennessee, and New Hampshire where courts struck down or paused similar restrictions on vagueness grounds. In Florida, the Stop WOKE Act was found unconstitutionally vague because it gave no guidance on the line between objective discussion and endorsement. Tennessee's law, which used language similar to HB 1775's 'make part of a course,' was also found vague. New Hampshire's provision was struck down for speaking only obliquely about the speech it targets.
How the ruling narrows the law
The majority explicitly rejected the plaintiffs' concern that the law prohibits discussing the eight concepts in the abstract or in connection with historical or popular figures. As an example, the court said a teacher is free to instruct about the Tulsa Race Massacre but is prohibited only from interjecting that one race is inherently superior to another. The majority said the law's language does not support a broader interpretation.
The court did not address the plaintiffs' First Amendment right-to-receive-information claims. The appeal was decided under the statute governing interlocutory appeals of preliminary injunctions, and the case returns to the district court for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Contrasting precedent and legal debate
The Tenth Circuit's approach differs from how other federal courts have treated similar laws. Florida's Stop WOKE Act was struck down for vagueness in 2022, a ruling later affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. Tennessee's law was preliminarily enjoined in 2024. New Hampshire's version was struck down the same year. In each case, judges found the statutory language failed to give teachers clear notice of what conduct is prohibited.
Supporters of HB 1775, including Attorney General Gentner Drummond, called the ruling a significant win for Oklahoma. Critics, including the ACLU of Oklahoma, said the ruling's narrow interpretation effectively limits the law to prohibiting educators from affirmatively encouraging discrimination.
Research on classroom impact
A 2023 article in the Oklahoma Law Review argued that HB 1775 creates a chilling effect on classroom instruction. The authors wrote that educators may inadvertently fail to follow the law because they cannot understand it, and that the statutory text lacks definitions for key terms such as 'course,' leaving those to State Board of Education rulemaking. The article analyzed the law's vagueness and overbreadth concerns in the context of First Amendment academic freedom.