A federal judge on Friday postponed a final decision on most of Arkansas’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit over the “indoctrination” portion of the governor’s education overhaul law.

In a 60-page order issued shortly before 5 p.m., Judge Lee Rudofsky of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in Little Rock said he was holding most of the state’s dismissal motion “in abeyance.” 

But he granted the part of the motion involving the plaintiffs’ claims that Section 16 of the LEARNS Act on its face violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He directed the plaintiffs and defendants to submit additional briefs on whether Section 16 as it is applied is discriminatory.

Little Rock Central High School parents, students and teachers filed the lawsuit in March against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Education Secretary Jacob Oliva. 

One of the plaintiffs, Ruthie Walls, teaches AP African American Studies, a course that received scrutiny after Sanders signed an executive order banning “indoctrination” on her first day in office. 

Similar language was later incorporated into the LEARNS Act. The state education department abruptly removed a pilot version of the AP course from its list of approved courses days before the start of the 2023-2024 school year last August.

Attorneys for the state and plaintiffs argued their case regarding the motion to dismiss in an October hearing that ended without a ruling from the judge.

Walls said after October’s hearing that, while the course is now fully accredited and students are earning AP credit for completion, she struggles to provide students with detailed explanations of the “fast and rich” curriculum because she isn’t sure what falls under the state’s definition of Critical Race Theory, one of the subjects included in the anti-indoctrination provision.

Rudofsky issued a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction in May preventing the state from enforcing the provision of the LEARNS Act that proscribes what can be taught in certain courses regarding race, gender and sexuality. The state appealed that injunction to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has decided it wants to hear oral arguments. A hearing date has not been set.

Under the preliminary injunction Rudofsky granted in May, Arkansas teachers can discuss Critical Race Theory, but they may be disciplined for “[compelling a] student to adopt, affirm, or profess a belief in a theory, ideology or idea (including Critical Race Theory) that conflicts with the principle of equal protection under the law.”

Reasons for delaying 

Rudofsky’s rationale in holding off on ruling on most of the state’s motion to dismiss involves waiting for the appeals court to resolve what he describes as unsettled legal questions regarding the free speech rights of teachers and students in a classroom setting.

Much of his Friday order deals with whether the plaintiffs made compelling arguments for their claims that the LEARNS Act’s anti-indoctrination provision on its face violates the equal protection clause and affects African Americans disproportionately.

“If discussing the idea and history of Critical Race Theory is allowed — and only compelling a student to believe in Critical Race Theory is prohibited — the Court struggles to understand how anyone is adversely impacted,” Rudofsky wrote in one part of his analysis.

The judge cites differing interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s anti-discrimination provisions in his reasoning on granting that part of the state’s motion to dismiss.

“Many Americans of good faith strongly believe that the answers to the racial problems we face as a country lie in governmental and societal color-blindness,” he wrote. 

Treating people differently based on race is morally and often constitutionally abhorrent to such Americans, he says, and they believe suggesting that racism affects every part of society “makes racial problems worse, not better.”

Other Americans of good faith, however, “strongly believe otherwise,” he wrote.

“To these Americans,” he says, “the answers to our racial problems lie, at least partially, in recognizing that race often matters, that certain groups (including African Americans) have long been discriminated against by both government and private society, and that active measures are necessary to rectify past injustices and present inequality.”

These citizens see treating people differently based on race as “often morally and constitutionally acceptable or even obligatory,” Rudofsky wrote. And they see an emphasis “on racial identity, systemic racism and unconscious bias” as necessary to dealing with the historic effects of racism, he added.

“These Americans see color-blindness as a pretense that reinforces racial inequality by refusing to confront systemic racism and unconscious bias. They believe there is a ‘legal and practical difference between the use of race-conscious’ measures to harm (or exclude) disfavored groups and the use of such measures to help (or include) them,” the judge wrote.

In adopting the LEARNS Act, “a majority of elected lawmakers seem to hold the colorblind view,” he wrote. The plaintiffs seem to contend that applying the colorblind view to legislation “is tantamount to discriminatory intent or purpose.”

“It is not,” Rudofsky wrote. “Plaintiffs may not like the colorblind view. Plaintiffs may think that those who hold this view are wrong or ignorant or even naïve. But that’s a world away from intentional discrimination.”

The facts presented by the plaintiffs don’t allow him to reasonably infer that “discriminatory intent or purpose was a motivating factor in the enactment of the LEARNS Act’s anti-indoctrination provision,” he wrote in dismissing the plaintiffs’ facial equal protection claims.

Friday’s order gives defendants until Jan. 31 to file additional briefs on their motion to dismiss limited to the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claims regarding the anti-indoctrination provision as it has been applied. Plaintiffs’ briefs on the issue are due Feb. 28, and the defendants’ reply brief on March 14.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Friday named a top attorney for the state and a state Supreme Court justice to vacancies on the court, and her deputy chief legal counsel as secretary of state.

The Republican governor’s appointments will give conservatives a 5-2 majority on the technically nonpartisan court, which has been targeted over the years by outside conservative groups.

Sanders named Justice Cody Hiland and state Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni to the court, effective Jan. 1. Sanders last year named Hiland to a vacancy on the court that expires at the end of this year.

“When I came into office nearly two years ago, we had a liberal supreme court. Not anymore,” Sanders said at a ceremony at the Capitol. “Our supreme court is now solidly conservative.”

Bronni has represented the state in several high profile cases, including one that narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act and another over the state’s requirement that contractors pledge not to boycott Israel. Bronni will replace Justice Karen Baker, who was elected chief justice this year.

“I come to the bench recognizing that a judge plays an important, but limited, role in our constitutional system,” Bronni said.

Hiland had been nominated as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas by President Donald Trump in 2017 and served in that position through 2020. Before being named to the court, he was state GOP chairman and served as an adviser to Sanders’ 2020 campaign for governor. Hiland will replace Justice Courtney Goodson, who was elected to another seat on the court.

“We have a special state, and the thing that makes us special is our people. So to continue serving in such a critical role is a blessing,” Hiland said.

Sanders also named Cole Jester, her deputy chief legal counsel, to succeed Secretary of State John Thurston, who will take office in January as state treasurer. Before working in Sanders’ office, Jester was an appellate clerk for Chief Judge Lavenski Smith of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“As your secretary of state, I will fight to keep Arkansas the best state in the country by keeping our elections the most secure in the country,” Jester said.

Purdue has landed its first transfer portal commitment. On Thursday, On3 reported that former Arkansas quarterback Malachi Singleton has committed to play for coach Barry Odom and the Boilermakers after spending the last two seasons with the Razorbacks.

Singleton, a member of the 2023 recruiting class, just completed his redshirt freshman season at Arkansas and will have three years of eligibility to use. It’s a huge addition for Purdue, which needs help at the quarterback position after losing Hudson Card (graduation) and Ryan Browne (transferring to North Carolina). Marcos Davila is also in the transfer portal.

During the 2024 season, Singleton appeared in five games for the Razorbacks, completing 21-of-28 passes for 358 yards and a touchdown. He also rushed for 74 yards and three touchdowns on 17 attempts.

As a high school recruit, Singleton was a four-star prospect out of Kennesaw, Ga. He ranked as a top-400 overall prospect in the 2023 class and was listed as the No. 17 quarterback of the cycle.

Landing Singleton was a significant addition for the Boilermakers, who will need to fill plenty of roster spots after being hit hard with transfer portal departures and landing just a dozen players in the 2025 recruiting class.

PURDUE FINDS NEW DEFENSIVE COORDINATOR: Barry Odom is bringing Mike Scherer, his defensive coordinator at UNLV, to West Lafayette, per reports. Scherer will be the Boilers’ defensive coordinator. CLICK HERE

PURDUE HIRES DE COACH: Purdue coach Barry Odom has hired Jake Trump as the next defensive ends coach of the Boilermakers. Trump played at Missouri under Odom. CLICK HERE

PURDUE HIRES NEW DL COACH: Purdue has hired former Arkansas assistant coach Kelvin Green to be the next defensive line coach in West Lafayette. The school made the announcement Wednesday. CLICK HERE