Court upholds Arkansas' school indoctrination bans
The big picture: A three-judge panel from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the bans do not violate students' free speech rights because the government can lawfully dictate what is taught in schools, the Arkansas Advocate reported.
Zoom in: Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders' sweeping education law, the LEARNS Act of 2023, includes a section on "prohibited indoctrination."
It's defined as communication by a public school employee or guest speaker that compels a person to adopt, affirm or profess an idea that people of a legally protected group like race, sex or religion are inherently superior or inferior or that people of a protected group should be discriminated against.
The law specifically calls critical race theory "prohibited indoctrination."
Context: Critical race theory holds that racism is baked into the formation of the nation and ingrained in the U.S. legal, financial and education systems, Axios' Russell Contreras writes. It was developed in law schools in the late 1970s and early 1980s and does not teach that members of any race, group, religion or nationality are superior.
Some scholars argue that race-based policies, like affirmative action, or those that take race into account, like redistricting protections, are needed to address racial inequity.
Flashback: U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rudofsky temporarily halted implementation of the indoctrination section of LEARNS from going into effect in May 2024.
What they're saying: The First Amendment right to receive information doesn't authorize a court to require the state to retain curriculum materials or instruction, even if information was removed for political reasons the Arkansas Advocate reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
I'm a conservative Catholic. Keep politics out of my church, other houses of worship
As a Catholic and someone who used to work in politics, I have often appreciated that when I step into Mass on Sunday mornings, I can focus on my faith and not the latest polling or candidate endorsements. I support religious liberty and being able to worship without government interference. But that freedom shouldn't allow our sacred places to become overly political. Partisan politics should be kept out of our religious institutions. But now a new ruling will allow religious leaders to endorse political candidates in churches and other religious houses without the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. I hope that doesn't mean I'll be hearing about candidate X from the pulpit. The ruling comes after the evangelical group, National Religious Broadcasters and two Texas churches, filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service last August. They were challenging, on First Amendment grounds, a tax code that defines the tax-exempt status for churches and other nonprofit organizations and prohibits their participation in 'any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.' As a result, the IRS has reversed its previous policy and will now allow religious leaders to endorse political candidates. I'm not alone in my dismay over the thought of hearing about politics during the time I set aside for worship. Faith leaders in Miami told the Herald that they're concerned this ruling could create rifts in religious communities. Houses of worship shouldn't become cogs in political machines. There are those who see this as a victory for religious freedom. Dr. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, praised the filing and tweeted, 'Government has NO BUSINESS regulating what is said in pulpits!' President Donald Trump also applauded the development. During the first White House Faith Office summit on July 14, he said 'God is once again welcomed back into our public square.' But I see it differently. God has never been absent from the public square — as a Catholic, I bring my values into my civic life every day. The real issue here is whether houses of worship will become extensions of political campaigns. I recognize the frustration some conservative Christians and others feel. In the past, many evangelicals embraced political engagement with enthusiasm, speaking at campaign rallies for Trump and mobilizing voters through explicit endorsements. This change in the law means they will no longer have to risk their tax-exempt status if they want to engage in partisan endorsements. The 'Souls to the Polls' movement, which focuses on Black churches, is one way that that faith communities already have influenced voter turnout. But the Catholic Church is drawing a line when it comes to this latest ruling. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying that the 'Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.' I've spent enough time in pews and on the campaign trail to know the difference between a sermon and a stump speech. And those lines shouldn't be blurred. When politics enters the pew, division follows. Houses of worship should be places of refuge, reflection and reconciliation. I may differ politically with my fellow congregants, but on Sundays during Mass, we are united in worship under one God. The last thing I want to know is who my priest is voting for or their political affiliation. As a conservative, I believe we should value institutions that transcend politics, not surrender them at the altar of partisanship. Religious leaders have many responsibilities — to guide us on issues of morality and faith, for example. But let's keep politics out of it. Mary Anna Mancuso is a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. Her email: mmancuso@
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Three things to watch after the big UN climate ruling
A UN court's finding that countries face climate obligations under international law will find its way into climate litigation in multiple venues — as well as diplomatic and policy battles. Why it matters: It's also a win for the nations most vulnerable to climate change, including the Pacific island nation Vanuatu, which spearheaded the push for a decision. Catch up quick: The International Court of Justice found in a 140-page ruling that countries face requirements under various climate, environmental, and human rights agreements. The UN's judicial arm's unanimous opinion finds that "wrongful" acts under international law "require" cessation of those activities. It calls for compensation if a "sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus can be shown between the wrongful act and injury." A few quick things that caught my eye from the decision that will have ripple effects we'll be following for years: 1. It practically invites litigation over fossil fuels. Check out this line (with emphasis added, and remember "state" means country): "Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State." 2. It tries to pump up those NDCs. The opinion seeks to put stronger scaffolding around the largely voluntary Paris Agreement, including countries' emissions pledges called "nationally determined contributions." That could bring new litigation over nations' NDCs by parties who argue they're too meek or not being implemented, attorneys backing the ruling say. "The court made it very clear that failure to implement an NDC would amount to a lack of good faith and a violation of the state's obligations," said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu. "The content of the NDC also has to be consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement, including the 1.5°C temperature goal," she said at a news conference, though noted that developed industrial powers face more responsibilities. 3. Don't look for it to sway President Trump."As always, President Trump and the entire Administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans," White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement to Axios. Trump is moving the U.S. away from working with UN-affiliated bodies, and is again leaving the Paris Agreement. That said, the advisory opinion claims countries face obligations under multiple pacts the U.S. remains a part of, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol. The bottom line: The opinion is a BFD — but only to a point.
Axios
4 hours ago
- Axios
Massachusetts Dems, fearing Trump overhaul, codify civil liberties
Massachusetts Democrats are fighting President Trump's federal government overhaul by passing laws preserving civil protections. The big picture: It's the same playbook Beacon Hill leaders used in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death in 2020 — when they codified abortion protections ahead of Roe v. Wade's reversal. State of play: Top lawmakers want to bolster protections for abortion and gender-affirming care — both of which have become targets under Trump — and preserve rights that critics fear will soon come under threat. The latest: Lawmakers soon plan to send Gov. Maura Healey an updated "shield" law that protects patient information when it comes to abortion and gender-affirming care following the Dobbs ruling. Meanwhile, lawmakers are negotiating competing versions of a supplemental spending bill. The House version would guarantee every child a right to a free public education regardless of immigration status or disability — protections stemming from a landmark 1982 Supreme Court case and federal education guidance. Between the lines: Democrats want to codify education rights stemming from Plyler v. Doe, even though Trump has not commented on the 1982 ruling — a similar approach they took to passing the Roe Act while Roe v. Wade was still in effect. Rep. Alice Peisch, the House Assistant Majority Leader, told Axios "there's some concern" the 1982 ruling and guidance could be overturned. If that happens, Pesich said, "we want to ensure that does not impact Massachusetts negatively." Context: The U.S. Education Department said this month it would limit Head Start programs to children with green cards or citizenship. Massachusetts and 19 other states are suing the administration over the changes. Questions about immigrant schoolchildren's rights also surfaced this year after the Department of Homeland Security rescinded its "sensitive locations" policy that discouraged immigration agents from entering schools, churches and hospitals. Yes, but: Although Republicans have control of the White House and both branches of Congress, they are a minority in both branches of the Massachusetts legislature, making it harder to fight Democrats' efforts to enshrine these protections. The MassGOP declined to comment. Minority Leader Bradley Jones did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday. Sen. Cindy Friedman, who co-sponsored the shield law update, said that while the Trump administration has spurred their efforts to codify civil liberties, "these are still the right things to do, and now's the time to do it." Sean Kealy, a law professor at Boston University and a former State House staffer, says lawmakers are responding to fears of executive overreach by Trump. "Making the law as specific as possible and removing any potential tools that could be abused to avoid that executive overreach is a really wise thing to do if you're a legislator," Kealy tells Axios. Those fears have also prompted state lawmakers to revisit updating archaic laws, including ones that ban homosexuality and "night walkers" — a term alluding to trans women and sex workers. Though those laws are long outdated, Kealy said, that wouldn't stop a Trump-aligned sheriff or district attorney from trying to enforce them. The Senate plans to vote on the archaic laws bill Thursday. "The way we speak about people and things and issues has been so eroded by this person, by Donald Trump. I just think it's very important to at least make sure our statutes don't play into that," Friedman said. Reality check: Lawmakers are negotiating multiple proposals, and even priority bills fall to the wayside.
