Indianapolis teacher appeals denial of injunction against law prohibiting ‘human sexuality’ instruction in grades K-3

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00
IL file photo

An Indianapolis teacher has filed an appeal to overturn a federal judge’s denial of her motion for a preliminary injunction against a new Indiana law that prohibits instruction on human sexuality in grades K-3.

Kayla Smiley filed a notice of appeal Tuesday in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In July, Judge James P. Hanlon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued an order denying the preliminary injunction motion filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of Smiley.

Stevie Pactor, an ACLU of Indiana staff attorney, said Thursday the appellate’s brief is due to the 7th Circuit by Sept. 18. Pactor said it would take about 50 days for the case to be fully briefed.

“It could be heard in December or maybe early into the new year,” Pactor said of the appeal.

The case in the 7th Circuit is Kayla Smiley v. Katie Jenner, 23-2543.

In his July 28 ruling, Hanlon said the injunction was denied because Smiley had not shown some likelihood of succeeding on the merits of her claims. Smiley alleges the new law, House Enrolled Act 1608, violates her right to free speech and is so vague that she does not know what speech and actions may violate the law.

Specifically, she argued that HEA 1608 is unconstitutionally vague under the 14th Amendment because the terms “human sexuality” and “instruction” do not give fair notice of “what she may say and where she may say it.” She also argued it violates the First Amendment by unconstitutionally restricting her speech.

In the order, Hanlon wrote that Smiley faced a heavy burden to show that HEA 1608 is unconstitutional on its face, rather than as applied to specific speech.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}