A US appeals court declares Florida’s Stop WOKE Act unconstitutional, citing violations of employers’ free speech rights in a landmark ruling.
Championed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, the law, signed in 2022, sought to ban mandatory workplace diversity training that promotes certain progressive concepts.
State-Defined Offensive Topics
These concepts include the notion that individuals are inherently racist or sexist and that individuals should feel guilt for actions based on their race or sex.
However, a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court judge’s ruling, which had blocked the law at the request of two small businesses and a workplace training consultant.
Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Britt Grant emphasized that the law infringed upon the free speech protections guaranteed by the US Constitution’s First Amendment. Grant highlighted that Florida’s law restricted discussions on specific topics deemed offensive by the state, while allowing discourse on other issues.
Free Speech Beyond Florida
The decision, joined by the US Circuit Judges Andrew Brasher and Charles Wilson, marks a significant legal victory for proponents of free speech. Notably, Grant and Brasher were appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump, while Wilson was appointed by Democratic former President Bill Clinton.
The ruling has broader implications beyond Florida, as it reflects ongoing debates surrounding free speech rights and government intervention in workplace diversity training programs. The case underscores the importance of upholding constitutional protections in the face of legislative attempts to restrict discourse on sensitive topics.
The challenge to the Stop WOKE Act was brought forth by Honeyfund.com Inc., Primo Tampa LLC, and Whitespace Consulting, who sought to conduct training sessions focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues.
In response to the ruling, Shalini Goel Agarwal, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs at the advocacy group Protect Democracy, hailed it as a victory for the First Amendment and the freedom of American businesses to express themselves.
As the legal battle unfolds, the decision sets a precedent for future debates surrounding free speech and ideological restrictions in the workplace.
