In March, Alabama enacted legislation targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The law, SB129, is set to take effect on October 1, 2025. If enacted, it would prohibit public schools and universities from using state funds to promote or compel agreement with eight ‘divisive concepts’ related to race, religion, and gender identity. While the law allows for ‘objective’ discussions, it restricts educators from encouraging any individual to “accept, acknowledge, affirm, or assent to a sense of guilt, complicity, or a need to apologize on the basis of his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.” An attempt by student and faculty plaintiffs to enjoin the legislation in federal court was denied last week.
The law was introduced amid political backlash over a lecture titled ‘Invisible No More: Alabama’s LGBTQ+ History,’ hosted by the Alabama Department of Archives and History. Lawmakers responded by proposing to rescind a $5 million grant to the department and to restructure the department’s board to be politically appointed, replacing a self-perpetuating board that included civil rights leaders.
The passage of SB129 prompted pushbacks from students and faculty at the University of Alabama. Six professors and students filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the law and seeking an injunction that would block implementation of the law. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on academic speech. They also asserted the law disproportionately affected Black students and LGBTQ+ students. The plaintiffs noted that, since the passage of the law, the University had shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and closed a resource center for LGBTQ+ students on campus. The plaintiff professors further reported feeling pressured to alter syllabi and remove course materials, fearing misinterpretation under the law.
Last week, Federal Chief Judge R. David Proctor for the Northern District of Alabama issued his ruling which declined to block the law, stating that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient harm. He further disagreed with the plaintiffs’ position that SB129 wholly banned discussion of the identified sensitive topics. Rather, according to Judge Proctor, the law “expressly permits classroom instruction that includes discussion of the listed concepts so long as the instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts.” Notably, Judge Proctor’s decision only denied the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The underlying lawsuit itself will continue. But, while it does, the law will remain in place and take effect on October 1.
While SB129 is specific to Alabama, its ramifications could extend beyond state borders. The law reflects a growing trend to regulate DEI programming and academic speech, often discussed as promoting neutrality or protecting students from discomfort. The federal court’s decision not to block the law—despite claims of chilling academic effects and loss of student support—may embolden similar legislative efforts in other states. Education clients, particularly public institutions, should be aware that such laws can impact curriculum design, faculty autonomy, student services, and funding streams. Educational institutions may wish to engage in proactive legal review of their policies, curriculum, and other services to identify how such a law, if passed in their state, may impact those items.
We will continue to monitor and report on these developments.
