Saying the issue is now moot, Oklahoma’s highest court dismissed a lawsuit challenging a requirement that public schools keep Bibles in classrooms and teach from them.
In a 6-2 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court wrote Monday that newly appointed state Superintendent Lindel Fields and the six new members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education said they planned to nullify a 2024 mandate requiring Bible usage in schools. The new education leaders also told the justices that they were not pursuing other mandates issued by former state Superintendent Ryan Walters that would use taxpayer money to purchase classroom Bibles or “biblically-based character education materials.”
Over 30 Oklahomans of various faiths or no religious affiliation had sued State Department of Education leaders in October 2024, arguing that the Bible mandates issued by Walters in June and July 2024 violated the state Constitution’s prohibition on state-established religion. They asked the court to block the use of taxpayer dollars to purchase Bibles and declare the overall mandate unenforceable.
They argued the Education Department did not follow state requirements when implementing the Bible teaching requirements, and that state academic standards hadn’t been changed to justify Walters’ order. Many of those plaintiffs had children in public schools and said required school-based biblical instruction could interfere with their ability to teach their own religious or moral beliefs at home.
While this case is fresh, the point of it being moot is that there are not ostensibly two sides in active disagreement that need the court to rule. Consider whenever you hear about old laws that aren’t enforced (like sodomy laws or race mixing). If it’s not being enforced, how do you get a lawsuit? There is no “injured party” or someone with a grievance. Who would defend it? You could bankrupt a district by continually challenging laws that aren’t being enforced. Now you might think you still want this case to go forward since it’s obviously unconstitutional, but what stops the “other” side from challenging whatever they don’t like whenever they want?
Sounds like a sword of Damocles. You should have the right to challenge unjust laws even if they aren’t currently enforced. There’s nothing stopping a bad actor from throwing you in jail for sodomy. And being able to fight bad laws to get them off the books should be a thing, whether they are currently actively enforced or not.
This might not be the way the law works, but I’d argue it should be.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Maybe don’t pass so many unconstitutional laws if you don’t want to be taken to court.