Alabama officials seek to dismiss lawsuit challenging state DEI ban
Alabama officials have filed motions seeking to dismiss a lawsuit challenging SB 129, a law that limits diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public universities and the teaching of so-called 'divisive concepts.'
The Alabama Attorney General's office and members of the University of Alabama (UA) Board of Trustees argue that the University of Alabama professors and University of Alabama Birmingham students suing to overturn the law lack standing and that their claims fail to establish any constitutional violations.
The plaintiffs, who also include the Alabama NAACP, allege that SB 129, sponsored by Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that the law discriminates against minority students and faculty by restricting funding for student groups and eliminating campus spaces designed to support minority students.
The attorney general's office claims plaintiffs 'fail to show how each and every provision of the Act harms them,' arguing that plaintiffs 'fail to include sufficient allegations to 'nudge their claim across the line from conceivable to plausible.''
The Board of Trustees stated in a separate motion that the law does not prevent discussions on race but prohibits faculty from requiring students to adopt specific perspectives.
'As it relates to the classroom, SB 129 states that professors may not 'direct or compel' students 'to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere' to one of eight 'divisive concepts' defined in the statute,' the motion states.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The law, which took effect last October, bars public universities from funding DEI programs and prevents discussions of concepts lawmakers deem divisive. It includes prohibitions against 'compelling' students to believe that any race is inherently superior or that people are responsible for historical injustices committed by others of the same race.
UAB students, UA professors sue Alabama over state law banning DEI programs
Ahead of SB 129's enforcement, universities across the state shuttered or rebranded DEI offices and closed dedicated campus spaces for its Black Student Union and LGBTQ+ resource center.
Plaintiffs argued that the law's impact disproportionately affects minority students by restricting funding for student organizations such as the University of Alabama NAACP chapter. Attorneys for the board argued that the plaintiffs' allegations 'do not involve any claim that Black students were treated differently from other students.'
'Plaintiffs instead rely on the precarious assumption that coursework related to diversity benefits Black students 'in particular,' because of their race,' the motion further states.
Professor Cassandra Simon, one of the plaintiffs, stated in the lawsuit that she fears discussing racial issues because students have previously expressed feelings of guilt or complicity after watching material on the Civil Rights Movement. Lawyers for the state argue that this does not constitute a First Amendment violation, even if Simon has already faced threats of termination for teaching a class on systemic inequality.
The motion stated that 'even construing these allegations as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Professor Simon's fear is not objectively reasonable,' saying that simply showing material related to the Civil Rights Movement does not 'direct or compel' students to accept the concept or 'penalize or discriminate' when students aren't in agreement.
'Professor Simon does not have standing to challenge any provision of the Act based on such conduct. The same is true of the other Professors' allegations regarding their subjective fears that teaching 'about' topics could violate the Act,' the motion states.
The defense also pushed back against claims that SB 129 is too vague, arguing that the law is clearly defined.
'Though Plaintiffs may not like its terms, the act is readily understood,' the motion states.
Plaintiffs have until April 18 to respond to the state's motion.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Appeals panel declines Louisiana's invitation to gut Voting Rights Act
A federal appeals court panel declined Louisiana's invitation to gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that has required the state to draw additional majority-minority districts, ruling Thursday that the argument is foreclosed by binding precedent. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholds a judge's ruling that blocked Louisiana's state legislative maps by finding they 'packed' and 'cracked' Black communities in violation of Section 2, the VRA's central remaining provision. The state urged the 5th Circuit, regarded as the nation's most conservative federal appeals court, to use the case to rule Section 2 unconstitutional by finding that conditions in the state no longer justify race-conscious remedies. The panel wrote that the Pelican State's position would 'eschew a clear mandate from the Supreme Court and disregard Congress's intent,' only briefly addressing the argument in the final three of the opinion's 54 pages. 'The State's challenge to the constitutionality of § 2 is foreclosed by decades of binding precedent affirming Congress's broad enforcement authority under the Fifteenth Amendment,' the ruling reads. Left unmentioned was the Supreme Court's case next term over Louisiana's congressional map, which raises overlapping questions about the VRA's future. The high court heard arguments this spring but will rehear the case Oct. 15. 'We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit panel's decision. We are reviewing our options with a focus on stability in our elections and preserving state and judicial resources while the Supreme Court resolves related issues,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) said in a statement. The 5th Circuit panel on Thursday also rejected Louisiana's separate argument that would broadly weaken the VRA: private parties have no right to sue under Section 2. It would take away the ability for cases to be brought civil rights groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which brought the underlying lawsuit, and leave any challenges to the Justice Department. Louisiana's case has attracted attention particularly after the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the position at the urging of other Republican-led states. But the 5th Circuit panel relegated the argument to a footnote, saying it 'is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.' The panel comprised James Dennis, nominated to the bench by former President Clinton, Catharina Haynes, nominated by former President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, nominated by former President Biden. Most of the panel's unsigned opinion was dedicated to Louisiana's narrower arguments to overturn the lower ruling blocking its state legislative maps. Louisiana argued U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick improperly set an expedited trial date, she was required to transfer the case to a three-judge panel and she failed to correctly apply Supreme Court precedent on the VRA. The panel rejected all those arguments, leaving the Obama-nominated judge's block in place. Dick ruled in February 2024 that the designs disenfranchised thousands of Black voters in violation of Section 2. She was prepared to order the state to conduct a special election rather than wait for the next cycle in 2027, but the 5th Circuit declined to allow her to do so as they considered the case.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court declines to block Mississippi social media age-verification law
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block Mississippi from enforcing its social media age-verification law against nine major platforms, for now. In an emergency ruling, the justices denied an internet trade group NetChoice's request to reinstate a lower court's order protecting social media giants like Meta, X and YouTube from the new requirements. The Supreme Court did not explain its order or disclose the vote count, as is typical in emergency cases. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, wrote a solo opinion cautioning that NetChoice is likely to ultimately succeed on its First Amendment claims even though he was siding against the group at this stage. 'In short, under this Court's case law as it currently stands, the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional,' Kavanaugh's brief opinion reads. 'Nonetheless, because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time, I concur in the Court's denial of the application for interim relief,' the conservative justice continued. NetChoice had asked the court to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the district judge's decision shielding the platforms from the 2024 law without explanation. 'Neither NetChoice nor this Court can know why the Fifth Circuit believed this law satisfies the First Amendment's stringent demands or deviated from the seven other decisions enjoining similar laws,' NetChoice wrote in its request, contending it would face 'immediate, irreparable' injury should the law be allowed to go into effect. Mississippi's law establishes requirements for social media companies to confirm their users' ages. Minors must have express consent from a parent or guardian to use the platform, and covered websites must strive to eliminate their exposure to harmful material or face a $10,000 fine. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden found the law unconstitutional as applied to NetChoice members YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor, Dreamwidth and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. In its Supreme Court papers, NetChoice argued that the law upended Mississippi citizens' right to access protected speech across social media, contending the 5th Circuit's lack of explanation is reason enough for the high court to step in. The state claimed the law targets predators by imposing 'modest duties' on the platforms and urged the justices to reject the application. 'NetChoice satisfies none of the vacatur criteria,' the state wrote. 'It has not shown that the stay order is demonstrably wrong, that this Court would likely review a Fifth Circuit decision rejecting the injunction, or that the equities support its extraordinary request. Tech and free speech groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in support of NetChoice's application, contending that the law puts an unfair bar on minors and burden on adults looking to engage in protected online expression. A group aimed at stopping child predators wrote in another amicus brief that the law fails to achieve its intended purpose of protecting children. NetChoice does not argue the law is unconstitutional in all circumstances, as it did in its challenge to Florida and Texas laws aimed at barring social media companies from banning users based on their political views, which was resolved by the Supreme Court last year. The Mississippi law was set to go into effect on the same day the justices handed NetChoice a win in those cases, sending them back to lower courts to analyze the Florida and Texas laws with new guidance.
Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
Kim Davis End Of Same-Sex Marriage Jokes
The internet is collectively roasting Kim Davis. A little context: Kim was the Kentucky county clerk who made headlines for refusing to give marriage licenses to LGBTQ+ couples after same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015. The courts ordered her to cut the crap, but she refused, citing her Christian faith, and was thrown in jail. Memes and jokes abounded, and it become a whole thing. She was even mocked by SNL in a parody film trailer called God Is a Boob Man. So, why is Kim trending again? Well, a decade after making a fool of herself in front of the whole country, she's back for more. According to ABC News, she's appealing the jury verdict that ordered her to pay $100,000 for emotional damages and $260,000 for attorneys' fees. Additionally, Kim argues that the First Amendment — which protects the right to practice your religion — means she shouldn't face any consequences for denying those marriage licenses back in 2015. Furthermore, she wants the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision overturned and called it "egregiously wrong." In the fall, the Supreme Court justices will privately choose which cases to take on, and they'll review Kim's case at that time, per ABC News. That's already a lot, but the internet is really coming so hard for Kim because of her personal marital history. Naturally, people had a lot to say about all this: Note: The photo of Kim in the original tweet was replaced here due to photo rights. And finally: Note: The photo of Kim in the original tweet was replaced here due to photo rights. What do you think about all this? LMK in the comments below!
