U.S. Justice Department: North Carolina’s HB2 Violates Civil Rights Act

QUANTICO, Va. – Students in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools on military bases sued today, arguing that DoDEA’s book removals and curricular changes following several executive orders from President Donald Trump violate their First Amendment rights. DoDEA operates 161 schools across 11 countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The suit was filed on behalf of 12 students from six families, ranging in age from pre-K to 11th grade, that attend DoDEA schools as children of active duty servicemembers stationed in Virginia, Kentucky, Italy, and Japan. Since January, their schools have systemically removed books, altered curricula, and canceled events that the government has accused of promoting “gender ideology” or “divisive equity ideology.” This has included materials about slavery, Native American history, LGBTQ identities and history, and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, as well as portions of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology curriculum. “Learning is a sacred and foundational right that is now being limited for students in DoDEA schools,” said Natalie Tolley, a plaintiff on behalf of her three children in DoDEA schools. “The implementation of these EOs, without any due process or parental or professional input, is a violation of our children's right to access information that prevents them from learning about their own histories, bodies, and identities. I have three daughters, and they, like all children, deserve access to books that both mirror their own life experiences and that act as windows that expose them to greater diversity. The administration has now made that verboten in DoDEA schools.” In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed three executive orders which led to these removals: Executive Order (EO) 14168 titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”; EO 14185 titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force”; and EO 14190 titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” The suit names Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and administrators of the DoDEA system, arguing that by revoking students’ access to books and curricula about race and gender, defendants are harming students’ First Amendment right to receive information. “Students in DoDEA schools, though they are members of military families, have the same First Amendment rights as all students,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Like everyone else, they deserve classrooms where they are free to read, speak, and learn about themselves, their neighbors, and the world around them. These schools are some of the most diverse and high achieving in the nation, making it particularly insulting to strip their shelves of diverse books and erase women, LGBTQ people, and people of color from the curriculum to serve a political goal. Our clients deserve better, and the First Amendment demands it.” The Department of Defense has also prohibited cultural awareness months, including Black History Month, Pride Month, Women’s History Month, and National Hispanic Heritage Month. Schools have also released guidance for yearbooks to prohibit students from using them to promote “gender ideology” or “social transition.” Books banned within some DoDEA schools have reportedly included “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini; “Freckleface Strawberry” by Julianne Moore; “Hillbilly Elegy” by Vice President JD Vance; “The Antiracist Kid” by Tiffany Jewell; and a preparation guide for the AP Psychology exam. “By quarantining library books and whitewashing curricula in its civilian schools, the Department of Defense Education Activity is violating students’ First Amendment rights,” said Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the ACLU of Virginia. “The government can’t scrub references to race and gender from public school libraries and classrooms just because the Trump administration doesn’t like certain viewpoints on those topics.” “Our clients have a right to receive an education that includes an open and honest dialogue about America’s history,” said Corey Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU of Kentucky. “Censoring books and canceling assignments about the contributions of Black Americans is not only wrong, but antithetical to our First Amendment rights.” The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, and the ACLU of Kentucky. The complaint can be viewed here: https://www.aclu-ky.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/ek_v_dodea_-_2025.04.15_ecf_001_-_complaint.pdf

Local library patrons, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of South Carolina, are suing officials in South Carolina’s most populous county for systematically purging literature by and about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people from its public library collection.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The U.S. District Court in Rhode Island today denied a motion for preliminary injunctive relief by arts organizations applying for National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funding. The court held that the NEA’s decision on Feb. 6 to make any project that “promotes” what the government deems to be “gender ideology” ineligible for funds likely violated the First Amendment and exceeded its statutory authority. It nevertheless concluded that, because the NEA is currently in the process of determining whether to reimpose that ban, the court could not get in the way of the agency’s decisionmaking process. “We shouldn’t need to negotiate for the right to support and uplift all artists — including transgender and nonbinary artists,” said Marta V. Martinez, executive director of Rhode Island Latino Arts. “This order fails to bring us the clarity we need to apply for funds for projects that allow Latinx artists, especially those who are queer, trans, or nonbinary, to show up as their whole selves without fear of erasure of censorship. Artistic freedom and equal dignity are fundamental to a just and vibrant society and despite today’s ruling, we will continue to create space for artists to tell their truths, challenge norms, and build bridges through their work.” The court reminded applicants that they “now ... have this Court’s preliminary review of the merits,” and that review suggests any reimposition of the eligibility bar would be unlawful. The NEA will announce how they are planning to implement the executive order on April 30, but applications for funding are due on April 7 and may be subject to as-yet-undecided rules, including the funding bar. “This opinion makes clear that the NEA cannot lawfully reimpose its viewpoint-based eligibility bar,” said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney at the ACLU. “Though it falls short of the relief we were seeking, we are hopeful that artists of all views and backgrounds will remain eligible for the support and recognition they deserve in this funding cycle and beyond.” Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, added: “The court’s decision will leave our clients in a state of censorial limbo. We are committed to continuing this case, defending the arts, and resisting attempts to stifle speech simply because the current administration does not like or agree with it.” The ACLU had asked for a preliminary injunction ahead of the grant application deadline. The NEA initially imposed a certification requirement and funding prohibition in response to President Trump’s order prohibiting federal funding of anything that “promotes gender ideology.” While the NEA temporarily rescinded the attestation requirement and funding prohibition after the lawsuit was filed, the agency advised the judge that the NEA was again in the process of evaluating how the executive order would be implemented, and that the evaluation would not be completed until April 30. At that time, the NEA may retroactively apply the funding restriction to projects that have already been submitted. “This is not the result we hoped for, but we remain hopeful that the NEA will be unable to reimpose their restrictions,” said Rose Oser, producing director of National Queer Theater. “This is just one of the administration’s many attempts to silence trans voices, but we will keep creating work that aligns with our values, and we will keep fighting on every front to defend trans rights and artistic freedom.” “We remain steadfast in our commitment to the artists and theatres at the heart of this fight,” said Emilya Cachapero, Co-Executive Director of National and Global Programming at TCG. “This moment is about more than a single grant cycle—it’s about the future of artistic freedom in this country. We are disappointed in this decision but will continue to advocate for a theatre ecology where all voices—especially trans and nonbinary voices—are welcomed and celebrated.” “This is just one of many steps to greater relief and there is liberation in clarity," said Giselle Byrd, executive director of The Theater Offensive. “Time is our greatest ally, and I await the result from the NEA’s decisionmaking process. We must remain vigilant, and if this executive order is reimposed, we will be back in court and fighting against the unlawful attack on the First Amendment. We do not walk away silently against injustice and silence will not protect us.” The suit argues that the certification requirement and funding prohibition violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Rhode Island, David Cole, and Lynette Labinger, cooperating counsel for the ACLU-RI, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts; National Queer Theater; The Theater Offensive; and the Theater Communications Group. More information about the case can be found here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/rhode-island-latino-arts-v-national-endowment-for-the-arts

BOSTON — Members of Rümeysa Öztürk’s legal team argued today before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston that Ms. Öztürk’s challenge to her unlawful detention and attempted deportation by ICE should remain in Massachusetts, rather than Louisiana, where the Trump administration took Ms. Öztürk after she was arrested and where she is currently detained. “I am a Ph.D. student working with children and youth,” said Rümeysa Öztürk in a statement dictated to her attorney. “We know that injustice in the world and systemic brutality towards people of color has long-lasting negative effects on children, youth, and other communities. My life is committed to choosing peaceful and inclusive ways to meet the needs of children. I believe the world is a more beautiful and peaceful place when we listen to each other and allow different perspectives to be in the room. Writing is one of the most peaceful ways of addressing systemic inequality. Efforts to target me because of my op-ed in the Tufts Daily calling for the equal dignity and humanity of all people will not deter me from my commitment to advocate for the rights of youth and children.” Rümeysa Öztürk, a Ph.D. student at Tufts University, was grabbed, arrested, and detained in Somerville, Massachusetts by plainclothes ICE agents last week in apparent retaliation for a Tufts Daily op-ed she co-authored last year. Last Tuesday, a Massachusetts court ordered the government to not remove Ms. Öztürk from Massachusetts without prior notice. However, sometime after that order, ICE officials transferred Ms. Öztürk to Louisiana without notifying the court, her counsel, or Department of Justice counsel. “The government quietly and quickly hopscotched Ms. Öztürk across multiple states in a concerted effort to evade accountability. She never should have been grabbed from her street in Somerville and secretly moved over 1,300 miles away from her community,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “We are asking the court to affirm that Ms. Öztürk’s case belongs in Massachusetts — near her friends, community, and legal counsel.” For nearly 24 hours, Ms. Öztürk’s friends, family, and counsel could not locate or contact her. When her attorney was finally able to speak with her, they learned that she had suffered an asthma attack while en route to Louisiana. “Snatching a student off the street in retaliation for an op-ed is a disturbing escalation of the administration’s callous disregard for our civil liberties,” said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU. “Ms. Öztürk’s case should stay in Massachusetts, where she was cruelly ripped away from her community. We will not stop fighting until this injustice is righted, and until this kind of abusive tactic is unimaginable in America once again.” Ms. Öztürk is a former Fulbright scholar who came to the United States on a student visa and has not been charged with or accused of any crime. Over 20 friends, colleagues, and professors, including the president of Tufts University, have sent letters of support to the court detailing Ms. Öztürk’s dedication to her work and her community and asking for her release. “If the government is afraid of a Ph.D. student writing an op-ed denouncing genocide, then we should be seriously concerned about the integrity of our government,” said Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law. “Rumeysa Ozturk did what we teach all people in America to do in the face of injustice — she spoke up. We will continue fighting until Rumeysa is back in Massachusetts where she belongs, and her rights and freedom are restored.” “From the moment a swarm of ICE agents abducted Ms. Öztürk in broad daylight, the government has spared no effort to evade accountability and deny her due process,” said Mudassar Toppa, a staff attorney at CLEAR, a legal nonprofit and clinic at CUNY School of Law. “We will likewise spare no effort to ensure the government's egregious unlawful conduct does not go unchecked, and that Ms. Öztürk and others like her can continue to express their sincerely held beliefs about Palestinian human rights without fear of retaliation.” “The federal government disappeared Rümeysa in front of horrified onlookers and spirited her away to a detention center in Louisiana, over a thousand miles away,” said Sonya Levitova, an associate at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. “No matter what the government says its rationale is for pursuing Rümeysa’s deportation, the reality is this: the government is concocting violations of immigration law to chill and retaliate against speech it doesn’t like. That’s illegal and antithetical to a free society.” Ms. Öztürk is represented by Mahsa Khanbabai, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. More information about this case can be viewed here: https://www.aclum.org/en/cases/ozturk-v-trump