Arkansas can enforce critical race theory ban in classrooms, federal court says

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News/AP

July 16, 2025, 7:44 PM EDT / Source: The Associated Press


LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Arkansas can enforce its ban on critical race theory in classrooms, ruling the First Amendment doesn't give students the right to compel the state to offer its instruction in public schools. A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued against the ban, one of several changes adopted under an education overhaul that Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed in 2023.

The prohibition is being challenged by two teachers and two students at Little Rock Central High School, site of the 1957 desegregation crisis. A federal judge had granted the injunction to the students but not the teachers.

"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," the judges ruled.

Attorneys for the teachers and students said they were disappointed in the ruling. "It gives us pause and concern about a steady erosion of individual rights and protections in this great country," attorney Mike Laux said in a statement. "Nonetheless, major aspects of this lawsuit remain viable, and they will proceed in due course."

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/arkansas-can-enforce-critical-race-theory-ban-classrooms-federal-court-rcna219228

---

Link to RULING (PDF) - https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241990P.pdf

[emulatorloo]

1. They are so good at drumming up fear/fake outrage over things that aren't happening.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

2. Agree in general

But if it wasn't happening, then why did the students and teachers sue? I mean, no one sues to reinstate something that wasn't happening in the first place.

[lonely bird]

3. Except

For the cake baker and website designer cases that were brought before the SCOTUS.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. Not quite the same circumstances

In the cake case, the baker had refused service to a same-sex couple, the Colorado commission found discrimination, and told the baker they couldn't refuse. So the case heard by SCOTUS was based on religious discrimination against the baker.

The website case is closer, in that the website designer had not actually discriminated, but she wanted to, so she went to SCOTUS to have the right to discriminate on religious grounds.

[Polybius]

8. To be clear, it was a little more complicated than that

He didn't technically "refuse service to a same-sex couple", he refused to make a specific cake with a gay theme.

Still wrong imo, just providing more details.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. Fair enough, thank you! n/t

[lonely bird]

10. Interesting...

What came up when I googled the cake case was the SCOTUS said the commission acted in an insulting and derogatory manner toward the baker. Perhaps they insulted his beliefs. The SCOTUS also allegedly said their ruling was very narrow and only applied to the behavior of the commission and was not to be interpreted as a broad permission to discriminate. Of course, the RWRNJs won’t and don’t view it in that manner.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. OK

And none of what you said disputes what I said. I was incorrect on the idea of them refusing to do the cake, it was, as rather that they wouldn't do the specific theme that the couple wanted.

[lonely bird]

13. Oh, no problem. You are correct.

I just had discovered the basic idea that the SCOTUS put forth while trying claim it was to be read very narrowly as though the RWRNJs would adhere to that. The website designer case was completely hypothetical, iirc.

Interesting Wikipedia link…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Yes, supposed to be very narrow n/t

[emulatorloo]

5. "The theory is not a fixture of K-12 education"

From the article:

Critical race theory is an academic framework dating to the 1970s that centers on the idea that racism is embedded in the nation's institution. The theory is not a fixture of K-12 education, and Arkansas' ban does not define what constitutes critical race theory.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. I agree 100%

So why the lawsuit from the students and the teachers? Meaning, why sue over a law banning something that isn't even happening?

[cbabe]

7. It's the camel's nose under the tent.

One ban then another. And before you know it they kill the department of education and make it illegal to teach kids how to read.

[lonely bird]

11. Why?

Because racists gotta racist.