Mejia et al. v. Edelblut et al.

Case Summary:

This lawsuit challenges New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law (passed and enacted as part of HB2 in 2021), which discourages public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity in the classroom.

The lawsuit argues that HB2’s vague language unconstitutionally chills educators’ voices under the 14th Amendment, and prevents students from having an open and complete dialogue about the perspectives of historically marginalized communities, as well as on topics concerning race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.

Litigation Team: 

This is a consolidated case

• Two New Hampshire school administrators who specialize in diversity, equity, and inclusion who are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of New Hampshire, Disability Rights Center – New Hampshire, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Nixon Peabody LLP, Preti Flaherty, and Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. AFT-New Hampshire
• The National Education Association – New Hampshire (NEA-NH)

Case Timeline and Related Documents

December 20, 2021: Lawsuit Filed

• A diverse group of educators, advocacy groups, and law firms filed a federal lawsuit challenging the New Hampshire classroom censorship law, contained within state budget bill HB2. The lawsuit argues that HB2’s language unconstitutionally chills educators’ voices under the 14th Amendment since it discourages public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity in the classroom.
• Link to Complaint
• Link to Statement of Facts
• View Press Release (Dec 20, 2021)

January 12, 2023: State’s Motion to Dismiss is Denied

• The U.S. District Court allows case to proceed, saying “Given the severe consequences that teachers face if they are found to have taught or advocated a banned concept, plaintiffs have pleaded a plausible claim that the amendments are unconstitutionally vague.”
• View Press Release (Jan 12, 2023)
• Joint Memo in Opposition to defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

January 16, 2024: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement argued

•  U.S. Federal District Court for the District of New Hampshire heard argument on cross motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued that the law is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and violates the First Amendment. Depositions and case documents revealed how the law is actively discouraging public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, disability, and LGBTQ+ identities inside and outside the classroom.
• View Press Release
• Plaintiff’s Joint Memo of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement