Ruthie Walls, et al. v. Sarah Sanders, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Arkansas, et al.

Little Rock, Arkansas civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff on a First Amendment violation theory.



Two students alleged an Arkansas law violates their rights under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause because they claim it prohibits their teachers from providing classroom materials and instruction about Critical Race Theory (CRT).

Concluding the law likely violated the students' right to receive information, the district court entered a preliminary injunction.



In March 2023, Arkansas enacted the LEARNS Act, which amended parts of the Arkansas Code pertaining to early childhood through twelfth grade education. See 2023 Ark. Laws Act 237 (S.B. 294). At issue here is part of Section 16 of the LEARNS Act, which is currently codified at Arkansas Code Annotated § 6-16-156.1 The provision directs the Arkansas Secretary of Education to ensure the Arkansas Department of Education complies with Titles IV and VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by reviewing its communications and materials to see if they "promote teaching that would indoctrinate students with ideologies such as Critical Race Theory, otherwise known as 'CRT', that conflict with the principle of equal protection under the law or encourage students to discriminate” based on someone's protected characteristics. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-16-156(a)(1), (2). The Secretary must also "amend, annul, or alter” any "rules, policies, materials, or communications that are considered prohibited indoctrination” and "review and enhance the policies that prevent prohibited indoctrination.” Id. § 6-16-156(a)(3), (d). "Prohibited indoctrination” is defined as:



communication by a public school employee, public school representative, or guest speaker that compels a person to adopt, affirm, or profess an idea in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, including that: (1) People of one color, creed, race, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status, familial status, disability status, religion, national origin, or any other characteristic protected by federal or state law are inherently superior or inferior to people of another color, creed, race, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status, familial status, disability status, religion, national origin, or any other characteristic protected by federal or state law; or (2) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's color, creed, race, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status, familial status, disability status, religion, national origin, or any other characteristic protected by federal or state law.



* * *



Students do not possess a supercharged right to receive information in public schools that alters these principles. Just as ordinary citizens cannot require the government to express a certain viewpoint or maintain a prior message, students

cannot oblige the government to maintain a particular curriculum or offer certain materials in that curriculum based on the Free Speech Clause. See Southworth, 529 U.S. at 235; Walker, 576 U.S. at 219. See also Griswold v. Driscoll, 616 F.3d 53, 58–60 (1st Cir. 2010) (Souter, J.) (concluding that revising curricular materials, "even if made in response to political pressure, did not implicate the First Amendment”); Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Pa. (Alito, J.) ("[T]he First Amendment does not place restrictions on a public university's ability to control its curriculum . . . .”); Boring v. Buncombe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 136 F.3d 364, 370–71 (4th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (recognizing that a teacher plaintiff "had no First Amendment right to insist on the makeup of the curriculum”); Chiras v. Miller, 432 F.3d 606, 618–20 (5th Cir. 2005) (concluding "the selection of curricular materials by the [State] Board [of Education] is clearly overnmentspeech” so "students have no constitutional right to compel the Board” to allow use of certain textbooks); Mayer v. Monroe Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477, 479–80 (7th Cir. 2007) (rejecting a teacher's claim that she had a First Amendment right

to "depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system”). But see Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 983 (9th Cir. 2015) ("[T]he state may not remove materials otherwise available in a local classroom unless its actions are reasonably related tolegitimate pedagogical concerns.”).

Preliminary injunction vacated and case remanded for further proceedings.