In an opinion issued last week in Alexandria, Va., U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the U.S. military’s school system over Pentagon-ordered curriculum changes and book bans. (Jasmine Vu)
The families suing the U.S. military’s school system over Pentagon-ordered curriculum changes and book bans have scored another small victory in their ongoing legal battle.
U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit outright, which was filed in June by the Department of Defense Education Activity, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and former DODEA director Beth Schiavino-Narvaez.
In an opinion issued last week in Alexandria, Va., Giles determined the families’ assertion that the curricular changes and book removals violated their students’ First Amendment rights met the legal requirements for the case to continue.
The plaintiffs’ allegations, Giles wrote March 20, “support a plausible claim that (the) Defendants’ stated motivations for removing hundreds of library books set forth an impermissible partisan or political motivation.”
Twelve students from six U.S. military families filed the lawsuit in April 2025 challenging DODEA enforcement of three executive orders signed by President Donald Trump. The orders, issued in late January 2025, are titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” and “Restoring America’s Fighting Force.”
Trump, when elected a second time in November 2024, vowed to rid America’s schools of perceived “wokeness“ and “left-wing indoctrination.”
In response to the executive orders, DODEA removed 596 library books from its schools for further review, among other changes.
In her ruling, Giles cited several memorandums filed in the DODEA case, including one from the agency’s acting chief academic officer at the time noting the book removals were “done in alignment with the applicable” executive orders, which target politically divisive topics.
“A directive from the President on eradicating ‘wokeness’ is the pinnacle of narrow partisan motivations,” Giles stated.
Giles last fall granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, ordering the immediate restoration of any books that had been removed at the five DODEA schools where the student plaintiffs were enrolled.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement to Stars and Stripes this week that “students in DODEA schools have the same First Amendment rights as all students.”
“It’s no surprise the judge ruled our case can move forward,” said Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the ACLU of Virginia. “The government can’t scrub references to race and gender from public school libraries and classrooms just because the Trump administration doesn’t like certain viewpoints on those topics.”
DODEA spokeswoman Jessica Tackaberry said on Friday the agency “does not comment on ongoing litigation to ensure the integrity of the legal process and to respect all parties involved.”
The defendants argued in part that, because no decision on book and curricular changes was final, that the families did not yet have legal standing since no harm had yet occurred. Giles said that argument did not hold up, since the changes were still carried out pending a final decision.
Giles, in reviewing the First Amendment challenge to the curricular changes, looked to Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which permits regulation of school-sponsored speech when in the interest of legitimate scholastic needs, according to the court papers.
The court, she wrote, “cannot contemplate” any educational justification for banning lessons on immigration, removing health textbook chapters covering the human reproductive system, fetal development, the menstrual cycle and abuse and neglect, or ending celebrations tied to “identity months,” including Black History and Women’s History months.
DODEA and Hegseth “immediately deferred to the President’s directives absent any further pedagogical review,” Giles stated.
