The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court by Tina Philibotte, left, Chief Equity Officer for Manchester School District, and Andres Mejia, Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice for Sau 16 in Exeter. Courtesy Photos
CONCORD, NH – The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on Jan. 16 will hear arguments in the lawsuit challenging New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law, which discourages public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity in the classroom. The arguments are scheduled to take place at 10 a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, located at 55 Pleasant Street in Concord.
The Court will be hearing a motion for summary judgment in AFT-NH/Mejia/Philibotte/NEA-NH et al v. Edelblut et al, during which the ACLU of New Hampshire will argue on behalf of two New Hampshire school administrators who specialize in diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as the National Education Association – New Hampshire (NEA-NH). These plaintiffs are represented by lawyers from a broad coalition of organizations and law firms, including the NEA-NH and National Education Association, the ACLU, the ACLU of New Hampshire, Disability Rights Center – New Hampshire, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Nixon Peabody LLP, Preti Flaherty, and Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. AFT-New Hampshire will also be arguing in this case against this classroom censorship law, as this is a consolidated lawsuit.
The plaintiffs argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and violates the First Amendment. Depositions and case documents revealed how the law is actively discouraging public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, disability, and LGBTQ+ identities inside and outside the classroom.
“This unconstitutionally vague law disallows students from receiving the inclusive, complete education they deserve,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. “New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law is an attack on educators who are simply doing their job, and through vagueness and fear it erases the legacy of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities.”
Last year, the federal court denied the state’s motion to dismiss the litigation, making it the fourth legal challenge to a “banned concepts” law in the U.S. that reached a similar finding. Laws banning similar concepts in other contexts in Florida were preliminarily enjoined on vagueness grounds in two cases, here and here, which followed another federal judge deeming impermissibly vague former President Trump’s “divisive concepts” Executive Order.
In that January 2023 ruling, the Court concluded that the law does “not give teachers fair notice of what they can and cannot teach,” adding, “[g]iven the severe consequences that teachers face if they are found to have taught or advocated a banned concept, plaintiffs have pleaded a plausible claim that the amendments are unconstitutionally vague.”
More case information can be found ⇒here.