Wyoming House lawmakers passed the third reading of a bill Tuesday that would hold government entities, with a particular focus on public schools, liable for limiting student freedom of expression. The bill is concerned with protecting K-12 student expression of political, ideological or religious viewpoints.
Bill supporters described a hypothetical student being penalized for taking a pro-life stance on a paper as an example. Those opposed argued that the bill could supersede existing school and federal policies, place a heavy burden on teachers and encourage litigation.
The state is generally exempt from tort liability, breaches in which a person could sue for damages, but there are exceptions. HB 159 would add schools discriminating against a student’s religious, political or ideological expression to the circumstances under which the state can be sued for damages. Under the bill, individuals who win their cases would be awarded no less than $5,000 in damages
The bill’s approach is similar to HB 157, which passed the House and was introduced in the Senate yesterday. That bill would hold government entities liable for damages if they violate parental rights. Sponsor Rep. Jayme Lien (R-Casper) testified that the bill expands on federal precedents around freedom of expression in schools and provides recourse through local courts.
“This is cheaper, faster and more cost-effective for the people of Wyoming,” said Lien. “It addresses perceived gaps in protections for viewpoints based on expression, particularly in religious or political speech, while incorporating safeguards against abuse.”
Representatives with the Wyoming Department of Education also expressed support for the bill on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder.
Sarah Beth Nolan is with Alliance Defending Freedom and provided expert testimony for the bill. In response to a question about what might happen if a student wore a Nazi swastika to school, Nolan emphasized that the bill would not cover speech that is not already covered by the First Amendment.
“Anything that would be considered a true threat – threatening a student by nature – and that child, and an objective person has a reasonable inquiry that would produce harm, then that’s not covered by the First Amendment, so it wouldn’t be covered by this bill,” said Nolan.
The First Amendment generally does not protect things like obscene speech, speech that constitutes harassment, true threats or incitement to violence, or speech that is disruptive in an educational environment.
HB 159 also would allow public schools to step in based on their own policies in instances like expression or conduct that “intentionally, materially and substantially disrupts the operations of the school or the expressive activity of another person if that activity is occurring in a campus space reserved for that activity”.
A majority of the co-sponsors of the bill are Freedom Caucus members or endorsees.
A representative with the Wyoming School Boards Association testified in opposition to both HB 157 and HB 159, sharing concern about both bills encouraging litigation and removing authority from a judge to make decisions regarding damage amounts.
Boyd Brown is the executive director of the Wyoming Association of School Administrators. He testified that HB 159 would put an increased burden on instructors, as it can be difficult to determine intent.
“We had kids that would wear specific clothes to get under other kids’ skin, and trying to ferret all of that out is very difficult at times,” said Brown. “We know that there’s time and place for our students to have freedom of speech and I think we try to do the best job we can there.”
Concerns around the bill also emerged during second and third readings. Rep. Julie Jarvis (R-Casper) expressed apprehension about it overstepping existing school policies and procedures, and suggested amendments.
“This bill actually gives children the right to override school policies and school procedures and it was written with that intent,” said Jarvis. “It exceeds and extends the law.”
Rep. Marilyn Connolly (R-Buffalo) supported Jarvis’ amendments and argued that the bill could dramatically increase litigation exposure even when school staff is acting within constitutional standards.
“It really also introduces legal ambiguity in grading, curriculum, classroom management decisions. Wyoming schools already follow federal constitutional law,” said Connolly.
Sponsor Rep. Jayme Lien (R-Cheyenne) opposed the amendments and argued the bill wouldn’t increase litigation unless a district was breaking the First Amendment rights of its K-12 students.
“If there is school policy that is currently inhibiting the First Amendment from being protected within those school districts, it is imperative that we take the time right now to course correct them,” said Lien.
Jarvis’ amendments failed.
HB 159 is now awaiting introduction in the Senate.
