The decision marks the next step in a long-running federal lawsuit.
The court answered three questions about state law from U.S. District Judge Charles Goodwin pertaining to House Bill 1775.
The questions were:
- Does the Oklahoma Legislature have the power to regulate the affairs of the University of Oklahoma — one of the defendants — or other universities or colleges impacted by the Act, to the extent done in HB 1775?
- Pertaining to HB1775's prohibition of "any orientation or requirement that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis of race or sex," what is the meaning of "requirement"?
- Pertaining to HB1775's prohibition of "any orientation or requirement that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis of race or sex," what does it mean to "present race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis of race or sex?"
The court said the three questions are answered by determining that the term "requirement" only includes subject matter in trainings and orientations, not university courses.
The court declined to answer three other questions that addressed the role of the law in K-12 classrooms.
The lawsuit was filed in 2021 in the Western District of Oklahoma by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the ACLU and ACLU of Oklahoma, and Schulte Roth and Zabel LLP on behalf of the Black Emergency Response Team, the University of Oklahoma chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the Oklahoma State Conference of the NAACP, the American Indian Movement Indian Territory, an Oklahoma student and two Oklahoma teachers.
The suit alleged HB 1775 was "unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, infringes on the rights of students to receive information and imposes impermissible viewpoint-based restrictions."
The defendants are the OU Board of Regents, Gov. Kevin Stitt, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, State Superintendent Ryan Walters, the Oklahoma State Board of Education and the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
In June 2024, the court granted in part, denied in part and reserved ruling on OU's motion to dismiss and the state officials' motion for judgment. The plaintiffs were also granted in part and denied in part their motion for a preliminary injunction.
In that ruling, Goodwin said the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge part of HB 1775 that prohibits Oklahoma colleges and universities from requiring students to engage in mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling.
Goodwin also enjoined the defendants from enforcing several provisions of HB 1775, saying they were unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Goodwin directed the parties to submit proposed questions for the Oklahoma Supreme Court to certify.
Both sides are calling the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision a victory.
The ACLU said it gives clarity to universities about academic freedom.
"This decision provides needed clarity to Oklahoma's higher education instructors, and we are pleased with the outcome," said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, in a news release. "Students in higher education expect to be challenged and to debate difficult ideas, and they expect their instructors to help them learn and grow — not stick to government-approved talking points."
ACLU of Oklahoma legal fellow Adam Hines said in the release the government is "certain to appeal this victory."
But, Attorney General Drummond said the law never intended to address college courses.
"I am grateful that the state Supreme Court has unanimously recognized and agreed with my office's longstanding and commonsense interpretation of the Legislature's language in this bill," Drummond said in a news release. "The ACLU's position here has never been plausible and is now rightly rejected."
HB 1775 author Sen. David Bullard (R-Durant) lauded the court's decision.
"Student[s] should never be required to go through indoctrination camps or as some call it, 'orientation,'" Bullard said in a news release. "Restoring our universities and public trust in them means we must first remove the push to make them centers for liberal indoctrination."
The case now heads back to federal court.
