I have not always understood what it means to be transgender, and I did not always support transgender rights. But, as I watched my son Parker suffer, I learned more, and I keep trying every day to understand what he goes through. Seeing firsthand the benefits of gender-affirming healthcare for Parker has opened my eyes to see that this is definitely the right thing.

Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.

I wish I could say that my little dude has spent his entire life being comfortable in his own skin, but that is just not true for Parker. Before he started his gender-affirming medical care, Parker was depressed, anxious, and withdrawn. I worried for his safety. He wore 5 sports bras to cover his body and couldn’t bear to see himself in the mirror after a shower.

Like all of us, he just wants to look in the mirror and see the person that he is on the inside staring back at him so he can go about his day. We all want our kids to be happy and live their best, most productive lives, and this ban would really put up a roadblock for that to happen for Parker.

Gender-affirming health care has helped Parker become the happy, healthy, confident guy he is today. Now he’s funny, outgoing, and always ready to face the day. He loves being active in choir, with his friends, and volunteering in our community. His transformation has been amazing to watch. That’s what is so hard about other people trying to take away the medical care that has enabled him to be his best self. I am worried all the progress Parker has made could be undone.

This law does not protect kids. It is not what is best for teens, or for Arkansas. In our amazing community we are very supported — this is our shelter. If we are forced to leave our shelter for the unknown in another state, that’s the hardest part of this whole thing. If we go somewhere else, he will lose the safety and support of the community that we have here. This is Parker’s home. Parker should not have to leave his home to get his health care.

On March 16, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals left in place the district court’s preliminary injunction, reaffirming the serious injury posed to educators and students by the Stop W.O.K.E. Act. The ruling will prevent the law from being enforced in institutions of higher education, pending appeal.

Earlier this month, a federal judge blocked Florida from enforcing the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act (Stop W.O.K.E. Act) in the state’s colleges and universities. Florida is just one of over a dozen states across the country that have passed laws censoring discussions around race and gender in the classroom, and this is the first time a court has ruled that this type of classroom censorship law is unconstitutional. This preliminary victory could present an opportunity to bolster similar challenges to classroom censorship efforts nationwide.

The order came in a lawsuit we filed on behalf of seven instructors and one student in colleges and universities across Florida to challenge the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which limits the ways concepts related to systemic racism and sex discrimination can be discussed in teaching or conducting training in workplaces or schools. The concepts were parroted from Executive Order 13950, issued by then President Trump and rescinded by President Biden, and have been incorporated in similar classroom censorship laws introduced and passed in other states.

Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.

We argued the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it restricts instructors from teaching and students from learning certain viewpoints, the law is unconstitutionally vague, and it intentionally discriminates against Black instructors and students. The order describes the law as “positively dystopian,” and makes the following key findings that could be leveraged to challenge similar classroom censorship legislation in other states:

In response to our lawsuit, Florida terrifyingly asserted that it had the absolute right to control what educators can teach because it is government speech, noting that university professors are public employees. This claim contradicts the longstanding recognition that academic freedom is a “special concern” of the First Amendment. In the university setting, this means the First Amendment protects universities’ and professors’ right to make teaching choices without government censorship targeting disfavored viewpoints. The state’s position that university instructors are “simply the state’s mouthpieces” could have dangerous consequences, including allowing the state to literally dictate lessons and have educators simply read from a script. The order held that educators’ First Amendment right to teach concepts prohibited by the Stop W.O.K.E. Act far outweighed the state’s interest in indoctrinating students to its preferred viewpoint.

The order recognized that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but also the right to receive information. In the higher education context, the court held that the scope of a student’s First Amendment right to receive information corresponds to the instructors’ First Amendment right to share.

The Stop W.O.K.E. Act limited instruction to viewpoints that the legislature agreed with, even when those viewpoints contradict research, academic scholarship, and foundational understandings of academic disciplines. Based on their academic training and research, our professor plaintiffs teach that some people are disadvantaged in America, and particularly in the criminal legal system, due to their race; describe the existence of “white privilege” and its impact in society; and advocate for affirmative action to ensure campus diversity. The Stop W.O.K.E. Act forced our professor plaintiffs to choose between teaching these evidence-supported concepts, which are foundational in their field, or censoring their viewpoints to comply with the law. As Judge Mark Walker noted, “[t]he law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints,” in contravention of the First Amendment.

First, the eight concepts prohibited by the law are vague. The order found that some of the prohibited concepts were impossible to interpret within the context of university instruction because of its complicated wording or ambiguous meaning. For example, the law permits discussion of these concepts if presented in an objective manner and without endorsement. However, the state argued that any promotion of the prohibited concepts would violate the law, so the state’s interpretation of “objectivity” was ambiguous because it only permits educators to present the concepts in a negative light. The court noted that professors could not organize a debate about the merits of affirmative action because any speaker that argued in favor of affirmative action would violate the Stop W.O.K.E. Act. The court also recognized that the lack of explicit standards about “objectivity” would allow arbitrary, and potentially discriminatory, enforcement of the law.

“Defendants try to dress up the State of Florida’s interest as a public employer and educator as prohibiting discrimination in university classrooms, but this does not give defendants a safe harbor in which to enforce viewpoint-based restrictions targeting protected speech,” wrote Judge Walker. Arguing that the Stop W.O.K.E. Act is an anti-discrimination law is a red herring. To be clear, education gag orders do not serve antidiscrimination purposes. They are thinly veiled speech restrictions without any attempt to limit discriminatory actions.

We are currently challenging classroom censorship laws in Florida, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire, and hope these findings will bolster these challenges and censorship efforts across the nation. We will not stop fighting for students’ and educators’ right to teach and learn free from state censorship and discrimination.

Corionsa “Khorry” Ramey is the daughter of Kevin Johnson, Jr., who is scheduled to be executed on Nov. 29, 2022 by the state of Missouri. On Nov. 21, 2022, the ACLU brought a lawsuit on behalf of Khorry, challenging a Missouri law that bars people under the age of 21 from being witnesses at an execution. Kevin included Khorry on his witness list, and she wants to be there. On November 25, a federal court denied Khorry’s request. Here, Khorry explains why she wants to be with her dad in his final moments.

My name is Khorry Ramey, I’m currently 19 years old. I am a new mom to my baby son Kaius, and I work as a nursing assistant in the St. Louis area, where I have lived my whole life. In 2005, when I was 2 years old, my father, Kevin Johnson, Jr., was arrested and charged with capital murder for the shooting death of William McEntee. My father was convicted and sentenced to death. In 2007, when I was 4 years old, my mother, Dana Ramey, was murdered in front of me by her ex-boyfriend.

My dad has been my only parent for almost all my life, and he is the most important person in my life. For as long as I can remember since his incarceration, I went to see him as often as family and friends could take me to the prison, and I speak to him by phone at least once a week. I also correspond with him several times a week through the Missouri prison system’s email and tablets, as I can afford it.

From prison, my dad arranged to have an academic liaison with my school so that the school could update him on my grades and my performance. He monitored my assignments and grades until I graduated from high school in 2020. Throughout my years in school, he encouraged me to study and complete my high school studies, and held me accountable to try my hardest in class. My dad continues to encourage me to pursue my educational and career ambitions as a nurse.

My dad has given me advice and guidance on my personal relationships, family relationships, and life choices. There is not anyone else in my life who understands me the way that he does.

I gave birth to Kaius in September 2022, and my dad is my biggest source of support, advice, and love as I navigate adjusting to being a new mom. On Oct. 18, 2022, I was able to visit my dad with my baby son so that they could meet each other. My dad was able to hold his grandson, and we were able to get photographs taken together. It was a beautiful but bittersweet moment for me, because I realized that it might be the only time that my dad would get to hold his grandson.

Credit: Khorry Ramey

I recently learned that Missouri law won’t let anyone under the age of 21 witness an execution. I am 19 years old, and except for not being allowed to buy alcohol until I am 21, it is my understanding that I am considered an adult for all other purposes in the eyes of the law. My dad has listed me as a witness he wants present at his execution and asked me to be present. As his only child, I want to be a witness to his execution.

I am my dad’s closest living blood relative, and he is mine, other than my baby son. If my dad were dying in the hospital, I would sit by his bed holding his hand and praying for him until his death, both as a source of support for him, and as a support for me as a necessary part of my grieving process and for my peace of mind.

I have suffered so much loss in my life. It is excruciating to know that I am about to lose my dad all over again when the state kills him, yet I cannot be present for his death simply because of my age. The fact that I will not be able to give him comfort and experience any sort of grief and closure for myself, for no other reason than my age, is a new and fresh loss, and a total injustice.

My dad was 19 years old when he tragically killed another person, as I am now. If the State of Missouri thinks that my father’s actions at age 19 make him mature enough to be executed, then it makes no sense that under Missouri law, an adult who is 19 is not mature enough to be present at that person’s execution.

I hope and pray that the Missouri Gov. Michael Parson will grant clemency to my dad. He is a good father, and he has worked very hard to raise me and become a good man in prison.

But if there is no clemency for my dad, and the state of Missouri goes through with my father’s execution, then the state should be ordered to let me be present at his execution now, despite the law. Or the execution should be delayed until I am at least 21, and under Missouri law, finally able to be a witness when the state takes my only living parent away from me.

The harm that I will suffer if Missouri officials bar me from attending my father’s execution for no other reason than my current age is deep and cannot be fixed. Gov. Parson, please do the right thing.