Case Summary
Several Florida educators and students challenged the Stop W.O.K.E. Act in 2022, asserting it restricted teaching race and gender topics, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A federal district court partially blocked the Stop W.O.K.E. Act by granting a partial preliminary injunction. Defendants subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. LWVUS filed an amicus brief arguing that legislative privilege should be limited in cases challenging discriminatory legislation.
Florida passed the Stop W.O.K.E. Act in 2022. Officially known as the Individual Freedom Act, on its face, the law prohibits teachings that suggest, among other things, that one race or sex is morally superior; that individuals are inherently oppressive based on race or sex, consciously or unconsciously; that a person is privileged or oppressed based upon race, color, sex, or national origin; or that racial colorblindness is racist or was created to oppress members of another race or color. It also bars teachings that state persons have responsibility for historical actions committed by others of the same race or sex. Violating this law can lead to disciplinary action against professors and loss of funding for state schools.
On August 18, 2022, several instructors and students at Florida universities filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against the act. The plaintiffs argued that the law restricted discussions on systemic racism, sexism, and related topics in college classrooms and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by censoring academic speech and viewpoint expression in higher education. The complaint alleged the act aimed to silence discussions on issues like Critical Race Theory, historical and systemic inequality, and racial privilege, and that its vague language and penalties chilled academic freedom and prevented professors and students from freely discussing topics essential to social sciences, law, and education, among others. On August 24, 2022, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. On November 17, 2022, the court granted a partial preliminary injunction blocking parts of the act.
Defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on November 29, 2022, requesting a stay of the injunction. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 9, 2022, following the dismissal of specific defendants protected by sovereign immunity.
As litigation continued, plaintiffs issued subpoenas to non-party legislators who sought information on whether racial animus motivated the passage of the act. On January 13, 2023, the defendants moved to quash the subpoenas to non-party legislators. In February 2023, the district court limited the scope of discovery for the non-party legislators and ordered them to produce relevant documents by March 8, 2023, including those containing information used in legislative decision-making or shared with legislators or committees. The defendants appealed this order to the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed the district court, ruling the documents were fully protected by legislative privilege on October 30, 2023.
In response, on November 20, 2023, the appellees filed a petition for a rehearing en banc, a request that the full court of appeals hear the case. On December 5, 2023, LWVUS, alongside several other interested parties, filed an amicus brief supporting rehearing en banc. The brief focused on Section 1983 of Title 42, arguing that the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling contradicts the United States Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Gillock, which limits legislative privilege when federal interests are at stake. The amicus brief argues further that Section 1983, a civil rights statute passed during Reconstruction to protect individual rights from discriminatory state actions, has long allowed challenges to racially or religiously discriminatory laws, which often require evidence of legislative intent. The League argued the panel’s decision impeded these challenges by denying access to evidence essential for proving discriminatory intent. On January 8, 2024, the court denied the petition for rehearing en banc.
The League was represented by O'Melveny & Myers LLP in this matter.
LWV Timeline
Plaintiffs file lawsuit
The plaintiffs file their complaint against the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, alleging it is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs file a motion for preliminary injunction
Plaintiffs ask the court to bar enforcement of the education provisions of the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, asserting its restrictions infringe on instructors' First Amendment rights to free speech and students' rights to receive information. Plaintiffs also allege that the act violates the Fourteenth Amendment due to its vague language.
Court partially grants preliminary injunction
The district court grants the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction blocking parts of the Stop W.O.K.E Act but allowing certain institutional enforcement.
Defendants move to quash subpoenas
Defendants move to quash subpoenas to 14 Florida legislators, claiming that legislative privilege bars the plaintiffs from subpoenaing them to seek evidence of racial animus behind the Stop W.O.K.E. Act.
District court partially grants motion to quash
The district court partially grants the motion to quash the subpoenas for the legislators. The order restricts discovery to documents relevant to legislative decision-making, shared among legislators or committees, and dating from March 2021 until the act’s passage.
Court of appeals reverses district court order on subpoenas
In October 2023, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit reverses the district court's order granting the motion to quash the subpoenas. The panel ruled the information at issue was fully protected by legislative privilege.
LWVUS files amicus brief
LWVUS files an amicus brief supporting plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc. The brief argues that the court’s ruling contradicts United States v. Gillock, which restricts legislative privilege when federal interests are involved and impedes enforcement of civil rights protections.
Court of appeals denies rehearing en banc
The Eleventh Circuit denies the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc.