By admin 
A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a South Carolina law that restricts the teaching of certain race-based concepts in K-12 public schools may proceed, a federal appeals court ruled this week.
Read more Hidden study casts doubt on need for nuclear weapons factories in SC, NM, critics say
, issued Wednesday by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed a U.S. District Court judge’s September 2025 dismissal of the suit for lack of standing and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Judge G. Steven Agee, writing for the Fourth Circuit panel, found the district court had erred in determining that several of the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and in dismissing three of the plaintiffs’ claims without stating a basis for doing so.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which brought the case on behalf of students, educators and best-selling author Ibram X. Kendi, hailed the ruling as a “significant step” in the fight against classroom censorship.
“This decision is a critical victory for South Carolina students, educators, and families who deserve access to truthful, inclusive education,” NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney Charles McLaurin said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing this case in district court and fighting for every student’s right to have honest and accurate portrayals of their history taught in their classrooms.”
The plaintiffs’ revived lawsuit argues that a five-year-old state budget provision violates the Constitution by denying students an opportunity to engage with educational materials that “center around diverse perspectives and the experiences of Black people, especially on the subject of racial inequalities in the United States.”
As evidence, their suit cites the South Carolina Department of Education’s discontinuation of course credit for an Advanced Placement African American Studies class and individual districts’ decisions to restrict or eliminate instruction or educational resources on account of the proviso.
A spokeswoman for South Carolina state Superintendent Ellen Weaver, who is being sued in her official capacity, said the Department of Education remained confident its actions were consistent with the law, but declined further comment due to the pending litigation.
Lexington School District 3 and Lexington-Richland School District 5, both of which are named as defendants, did not respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit’s reinstatement.
What does the law say?
The proviso, or one-year law, at issue was inserted into South Carolina’s 2021 budget and has been included in every state spending plan since.
It prohibits public school districts from teaching certain beliefs about race and sex, such as that an individual, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive or that an individual’s moral standing or worth is determined by their race or sex.
The measure’s language mirrors President Donald Trump’s 2020 executive order on combating race and sex stereotyping, which introduced nine “divisive concepts” it said had begun to infiltrate the country’s core institutions.
The executive order, signed about a year after the New York Times’ controversial 1619 Project reframed American history by placing slavery at the center of the national narrative, outlawed race and sex stereotyping or scapegoating in the federal workforce and military.
South Carolina’s budget proviso, adopted the year after the executive order, bans instruction involving many of the same “divisive concepts” identified by the Trump administration.
Read more Challenge to SC law that restricts teaching on race, gender reinstated on appeal
While many would agree that such views have no place in public schools, their explicit prohibition has had a chilling effect on culturally relevant teaching in the Palmetto State, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argues.
“It’s really difficult to decipher where the line is on some of these concepts,” McLaurin said in an interview Thursday. “And the practical result is that teachers and educators will naturally steer clear of anything that remotely touches upon these concepts for fear that they might be penalized.”
Students, educators challenge law
The group’s lawsuit, filed in January 2025, requests that the budget proviso be found unconstitutional and asks the court to issue an injunction restraining its enforcement.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s attorneys argue the measure, which they describe as a “racially and politically motivated censorship law,” violates both the First Amendment right to receive information and disseminate ideas and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.
Their suit cites the Department of Education’s decertification of the AP African American Studies course; Lexington 3’s removal of Kendi’s book “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You” from its schools and libraries; and Lexington-Richland 5’s reprimand of a teacher who assigned students a lesson on systemic racism as evidence that the proviso has been used to restrict or eliminate instruction, training and resources about racial and gender inequalities.
In an order dismissing the suit last fall, a U.S. District Court judge opined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law because, among other things, the harms they claimed to have suffered could not be redressed by a favorable decision.
“The court recognizes that the issues raised are matters of public importance,” Judge Sherri Lydon wrote in her dismissal order. “But because Plaintiffs lack standing, the Constitution leaves their resolution to the democratic process rather than the federal courts.”
The federal appeals court panel reached a different conclusion.
In its opinion Wednesday, the judges affirmed the dismissal of one student plaintiff whose claims are now moot due to her having graduated, but found that Kendi and at least one of the NAACP’s student members had standing to sue.
The panel also vacated the dismissal of the student plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim and all plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment claims, which the district court dismissed without specifically addressing, and vacated Lydon’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction.
“Perhaps the district court intended to address all the claims based on the redressability of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries,” the Fourth Circuit’s Agee wrote. “But it didn’t say as much or recognize that those claims existed as alleged in the amended complaint. It was error to dismiss those claims without stating a basis for doing so.”
The appellate court’s ruling means that Lydon will be left to review the case anew in light of the Fourth Circuit’s opinion.
While there’s no timeline or deadline by which the district court must resume proceedings in the case, McLaurin said he hopes Lydon takes it up ahead of the new school year.
Read more Plans for apartments, retail in Columbia gateway stoke fears of crime, blight