Judge could halt California antisemitism school law ahead of Jan. 1 rollout
Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource
A federal judge could decide as early as Wednesday whether to put a hold on a new, highly contested law aimed at preventing rising complaints of antisemitism in California schools.
U.S. District Court Judge Nöel Wise will hear arguments Wednesday in a San Jose courtroom on a motion seeking an injunction to prevent Assembly Bill 715 from going into effect on Jan. 1.
The law bans discriminatory and biased instruction, inaccurate materials, and school activities deemed antisemitic. It creates a new Office of Civil Rights for K-12 education that includes an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator who would develop resources and provide antisemitism education.
The plaintiffs include four California public school teachers, the organization LA Educators for Justice in Palestine, and three public school students. The lead plaintiff in Andrea Pritchett v. Gavin Newsom is a middle school U.S. history teacher in the Berkeley Unified School District who, the complaint says, has already been subjected to a monthslong investigation because of her comment linking Israeli settlements in the West Bank to colonialism.
They charge that the new vague and overly broad law would violate their First Amendment speech rights and chill an open discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They argue that AB 715’s failure to define antisemitism would leave teachers vulnerable to face discipline and penalties for even answering student questions about Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza.
The bill’s language also seeks to illegally curtail a specific point of view. “It is almost unheard of for the Governor to sign such a bill into law,” their motion states.
In the state’s response, Attorney General Rob Bonta argues that the law is consistent with other state laws that bar discrimination based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. His brief states that AB 715 clarifies the prohibition on the use of instructional materials, professional development materials, and curriculum “that would subject students to unlawful discrimination or that are factually inaccurate.”
An injunction would be premature because the Office of Civil Rights hasn’t been established yet, and the harms the teachers are citing are theoretical, Bonta argues.
Further, the brief argues that the government has the constitutional right to ensure that what is taught in schools is factually accurate and is free from bias and doesn’t create a hostile learning environment for its Jewish students.
Finally, it says that, as government employees, teachers don’t have the same First Amendment rights as those outside the classroom.
That’s a point that Wise indicated she wants to explore at Wednesday’s hearing. In a Dec. 15 memo to attorneys, she wrote that attorneys for both sides should focus on this question: “Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, do public school teachers have a right to free speech when they are teaching?”
