On December 19, 2025, a contentious debate over the boundaries of free speech, parental rights, and educational policy reached new heights across the American South, as federal courts and state officials weighed in on a series of laws designed to restrict access to certain materials and discussions in public schools. The legal battles—centered in Florida, Texas, and joined by a coalition of more than 20 states—underscore the deep divisions over what is appropriate for students in K-12 classrooms and libraries, and who gets to decide.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin made headlines when he announced he is leading a 21-state coalition filing an amicus brief in support of Florida’s HB 1069. This law is designed to prevent sexually graphic materials from being available to young students in public-school libraries. According to Griffin, the coalition is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to overturn a district court ruling that blocked Florida from restricting books containing explicit sexual content in K–12 libraries. The district court had previously ruled that Florida’s law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, but Griffin and his allies see things differently.
“There is no First Amendment right to compel public-school libraries to stock their shelves with books containing graphic descriptions of sex acts that elementary students can access without their parents’ knowledge or consent,” Griffin said, as quoted by Arkansas media outlets. He continued, “The Eleventh Circuit should reverse the lower court and hold that curation decisions for public-school libraries are government speech. Doing so helps ensure that important decisions regarding the education of children and the contents of public-school libraries remain with the constitutionally appropriate decisionmakers: democratically accountable state and local officials.”
The amicus brief has been joined by attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. Their collective argument hinges on the idea that the selection of library materials in public schools is a form of government speech, and as such, is not subject to the same First Amendment scrutiny as private expression. This position, if upheld by the Eleventh Circuit, could have sweeping implications for how school libraries are curated across the country.
Meanwhile, in Texas, a separate but related controversy is unfolding in federal court. On December 19, 2025, a federal judge in Houston was tasked with deciding the fate of Texas’ Parental Bill of Rights, a state law that bans public schools from programs or discussions on gender, race, and sexual orientation. The law—authored by State Senator and now Texas Tech Chancellor Brandon Creighton—has become a lightning rod for criticism from civil rights organizations and student advocacy groups.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a coalition of student and LGBTQ rights groups filed suit against the law, arguing that it violates students’, teachers’, and parents’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, including free speech and equal access. According to the ACLU, the law “is an overzealous attempt to ban what lawmakers refer to as ‘DEI’”—diversity, equity, and inclusion—“in schools throughout the state.”
The legal challenge to Texas’ law is not just about abstract principles. The suit, filed in late August 2025, specifically targets Senate Bill 12, also known as the Parent’s Bill of Rights, which went into effect at the start of the 2025-26 school year. According to a deep dive by Texas AFT, the legislation aims to expand parental knowledge of student mental, emotional, and physical health. But its critics say it goes much further, banning any discussion and clubs related to sexual and gender identity in K-12 schools and prohibiting educators from using student preferred names, pronouns, or other gender expressions.
Representatives with the ACLU wrote in their initial lawsuit that the law is so “sprawling and vague that it contains at least four flagrantly unconstitutional provisions.” These include: banning student organizations based on sexual or gender identity; prohibiting references to race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation in school programs; banning employees from assisting in any student’s social (gender) transition; and banning teaching or programs regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. The plaintiffs, including the GSA Network, Texas teachers, parents, and students, claim that these restrictions violate the First Amendment rights of students and faculty.
“Unless these unlawful aspects of SB 12 are enjoined, Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech and expressive association will be irreparably suppressed,” the civil rights organizations wrote in their lawsuit, as reported by Texas news outlets. The case, GSA Network, et al. v. Morath, et al., remains undecided, with the judge having heard over three hours of legal arguments but not yet issuing a ruling on the preliminary injunction.
These legal battles are not occurring in a vacuum. They reflect a broader national debate over the role of schools in addressing sensitive topics, the rights of parents to control what their children are exposed to, and the constitutional protections afforded to students and educators. Supporters of the new state laws argue that they are necessary to protect children from inappropriate materials and to ensure that parents have a say in their education. Critics, however, warn that such laws amount to censorship, erode the rights of marginalized students, and stifle important conversations about identity, history, and inclusion.
The political divide on these issues is stark. Those backing the Florida and Texas measures often frame their efforts as a defense of parental rights and traditional values, emphasizing the need for local control and community standards. “Doing so helps ensure that important decisions regarding the education of children and the contents of public-school libraries remain with the constitutionally appropriate decisionmakers: democratically accountable state and local officials,” Griffin reiterated in his statement.
Opponents, including the ACLU, GSA Network, and other civil rights groups, counter that these laws threaten the very foundations of free speech and equality in education. They argue that banning discussions of race, gender, and sexual orientation not only marginalizes vulnerable students but also deprives all students of a comprehensive education. The ACLU’s lawsuit against Texas’ Senate Bill 12 encapsulates this view, warning that “Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech and expressive association will be irreparably suppressed” unless the law is blocked.
As these cases wind their way through the courts, the stakes could hardly be higher. The outcome will shape not just what books are on library shelves or what topics can be discussed in classrooms, but also the broader question of who gets to define the boundaries of education in a diverse and divided society. With decisions pending in both the Eleventh Circuit and the Houston federal court, educators, parents, and students across the country are watching closely—knowing that the answers may well set precedents for years to come.
The legal wrangling over parental rights, free speech, and educational policy is far from over, but the intensity of the current debates signals that the conversation about what belongs in America’s schools is only growing louder.
