Across the country, lawmakers and federal agencies are attempting to censor what students and educators can read, learn, and discuss in classrooms. These efforts—whether banning books in Department of Defense schools, silencing teachers in Oklahoma and Florida, or chilling protests at universities—strip away fundamental rights and limit opportunities for an honest, inclusive education.
At the ACLU, we know that our rights don’t disappear at the schoolhouse gate. When government officials suppress ideas about race, gender, identity, or systemic inequality, they not only deny students an accurate education, they undermine democracy itself. That’s why we’re challenging these laws and policies in court: to ensure that classrooms remain places where young people can think critically, engage with diverse perspectives, and prepare to participate fully in civic life.
Below, find a list of our active cases, broken down so that our communities know why it’s so vital to stop censorship at every level.
E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity
Facts: In 2025, 12 students in Department of Defense schools (DoDEA) on military bases around the world sued after the agency removed books and altered curricula related to race, gender, and LGBTQ issues. These actions followed executive orders banning “gender ideology” and so-called “divisive concepts” in federal agencies. The case highlights how presidential edicts can directly impact educational content for military families.
Our Argument: At the ACLU, we know that DoDEA’s actions violate students’ First Amendment rights and deny them a comprehensive and high-quality education. Censorship undermines students’ ability to learn and signals to marginalized students that their identities and experiences are less valued. Protecting access to diverse content is essential to uphold both constitutional rights and educational standards.
Why It Matters: The outcome could set a precedent for educational censorship. A ruling in favor of students would affirm the right to inclusive, diverse, and fact-based education. It would also strengthen protections for LGBTQ+ youth and students of color nationwide.
Case Status: Awaiting a decision about whether our case can proceed, and whether DoDEA must put books back on the shelf in the meantime.
The Last Word: “Children in military families have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Families in DoDEA schools have the right to access books about race and gender and the right to learn about the vibrantly diverse world around them. We shouldn’t be stifling age-appropriate exposure to ideas this administration happens to deem politically incorrect.
BERT v. O’Connor
Facts: In 2021, Oklahoma students and teachers challenged HB 1775, which bans instruction on vaguely defined topics concerning race, gender, and systemic inequality. The law attempts to restrict educators’ ability to teach historical and social realities, chilling classroom discussions on important civil rights and social issues. In 2024, the judge blocked implementation of some parts of the law, including making clear that the law cannot apply to instruction or scholarship in higher education.
Our Argument: HB 1775 violates both the First and 14th Amendments. Educators must be allowed to provide a full and accurate education according to their experience and expertise, without fear of violating ambiguous prohibitions. Students must be allowed to learn without partisan, political censorship of the curriculum. Protecting students’ right to receive information ensures they can learn about societal issues and develop critical thinking skills.
Why It Matters: The ruling will shape how far states can limit educational content on race, gender, and social justice in both K-12 schools and colleges and universities. Upholding the students and educators’ rights preserves academic freedom in higher ed and protects our entire education system from partisan censorship. This case has broader implications for free speech and anti-discrimination protections in schools across the U.S.
Status: A judge has struck down the law’s application in higher education classrooms, as well as the most severe restrictions on K-12 education. In 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed that college classrooms are beyond the scope of the law. The case is now on appeal – student and teacher plaintiffs are seeking to block the law in its entirety, while Oklahoma is seeking to enforce the law in full in k-12 schools.
The Last Word: “Vague and censorial laws like HB 1775 cast a broad chilling effect across the entire education system,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Teachers should be able to teach without fear and students should be able to learn about their communities and society. This is doubly true in higher education, where adults should be empowered to ask questions, engage in debate, and pursue research without political interference."
Pernell v. Lamb
Facts: In 2022, Florida educators and students challenged the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act” (HB 7), which limits instruction on topics related to race, gender, and systemic inequality in higher education. The law prohibits teaching about privilege, bias, and structural racism in ways that the legislature disfavors, framing these discussions as divisive.
Our Argument: The Stop W.O.K.E. Act violates the First Amendment by restricting speech and violates the 14th Amendment by creating vague, discriminatory standards. These restrictions infringe upon the academic freedom of professors and restrict students’ ability to engage with essential social and historical topics. At the ACLU, we believe all colleges and universities must remain spaces for critical inquiry and inclusive learning.
Why It Matters: This case addresses the limits of state power in regulating instruction in higher education institutions. The state of Florida has argued it can control every word spoken by professors in classes, opening the door for the state to replace teaching with state-issued transcripts and state propaganda. A ruling in favor of educators and students protects academic freedom and ensures that schools can teach factual, inclusive, and equitable content, and that professors can enjoy the full protection of academic freedom to research and debate without political interference. It also signals a commitment to civil rights and educational integrity in Florida and beyond.
Status: The trial court blocked enforcement of the law in higher education, agreeing that it violated the First and 14th Amendments. The state appealed but cannot enforce the law as we await a ruling on the law from the appellate court.
The Last Word: “Higher education is the place for students to critically examine ideas, engage in rich discussions and debates, and to grapple with the complexities of academic disciplines. Government censorship undermines the essential purposes of higher education,” said Leah Watson, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Racial Justice Project. “Discussions about race and sex are foundational for many areas of academic study and should be unfettered; politicians shouldn’t get to decide what our students learn, think, or say.”
Student and Scholar Detention
The Facts: In early 2025, the Trump administration began detaining international students and scholars, including green card holders,based solely on their protected political speech about Palestinians and Israel. The cases include:
- Khalil v. Trump: Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian lawful permanent resident and recent Columbia University graduate, was arrested by ICE agents on March 8 because of his advocacy on Columbia’s campus. His detention, and threatened deportation, hinged on an unprecedented interpretation of a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act referred to as the “foreign policy ground.”
- Öztürk v. Hyde: Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish PhD student and Fulbright scholar, was grabbed off the street by masked ICE agents on March 25 in retaliation for co-authoring an op-ed criticizing Tufts University’s response to student resolutions on the war in Gaza.
- Mahdawi v. Trump: Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian lawful permanent resident and soon-to-be Columbia graduate, was taken into ICE custody at his naturalization interview on April 14 because of his participation in the student protest movement.
- Suri v. Trump: Dr. Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral scholar at Georgetown University, was arrested by ICE on March 17, based solely on his and his family’s protected speech about Palestine and family ties to people in Gaza.
Our Argument: Detaining and attempting to deport people for their lawful political speech that is pro-Palestinian is an egregious example of viewpoint-based censorship. The government’s argument that these students and scholars undermine or threaten U.S. foreign policy interests is an abuse of immigration law used to silence speech. The courts have consistently recognized that such retaliatory government actions are unacceptable.
Why It Matters: These cases strike at the heart of First Amendment freedoms, ensuring that political speech is not penalized through immigration enforcement. Rulings in favor of these individuals will send a powerful message: political dissent—especially from immigrant communities—is not grounds for exile. Upholding these freedoms also reinforces norms around academic freedom, due process, and non-discrimination, regardless of citizenship.
Status: All four students and scholars have been released from ICE custody and have obtained orders preventing their deportation while litigation continues.
The Last Word: “The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring speech in America, regardless of the immigration status of the speaker,” said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Weaponizing immigration law to silence viewpoints is an abuse of power, and it should disturb everyone, regardless of whether they agree with the student protestors, that the federal government is seeking to distort political debate in this draconian manner.”
Doe v. Alwan
Facts: In 2024, five current and former Columbia University students sued the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors, claiming that its statements about student protests led to injuries suffered as a result of Columbia’s decisions to move classes online, restrict access to campus, and cancel commencement. The group had spoken publicly in defense of students’ rights to free speech and protest and against what they deemed Columbia’s overly punitive response.
Our Argument: This case is a classic example of a “SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, aimed at suppressing and chilling protected political expression. SLAPPs are lawsuits seeking to punish individuals for their speech, saddling them with hefty legal fees and lengthy litigation just for speaking their mind. Faculty and student activism must be free from intimidation or retaliation. Ensuring free speech on campus is critical for academic freedom and robust civic engagement.
Why It Matters: The outcome will strengthen the application of anti-SLAPP protections in New York, including in the higher education context, and safeguard the right to protest and speak publicly without fear of legal consequences. A ruling for defendants strengthens protections for students and faculty engaging in activism and critical discourse, but it also strengthens everyone’s right to talk about matters of public concern without fear that they may get sued as punishment.
Status: We are waiting on a judge’s decision on our motion to dismiss and our anti-SLAPP motion, which seeks to dismiss the lawsuit against our client. If the suit is dismissed, under New York’s anti-SLAPP law, our client will be entitled to legal fees.
The Last Word: “This lawsuit is completely meritless, and it is exactly the kind of action that anti-SLAPP laws are meant to deter,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Professors have to be able to speak about university affairs without fear of punishment, and we won’t allow them to be bullied into silence.”