If the law is still on the books, then the issue is not moot.
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
127 points (99.2% liked)
News
37121 readers
1393 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If I'm reading the article right, it is not a law on the books.
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.
The Bible requirements were not laws passed by the state legislature. They were mandates issued by then state Superintendent Walters. The new Superintendent, Lindel Fields, and six new members of the board of Education have stated that they will nullify the mandate(s) issued by Walters.
Correct. It was never a law and is no longer a thing. This is just ragebait.
Maybe not, but the issue in the case before the Court is moot.
e: and also, it was never a "law on the books". Go read the thing.
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 could bankrupt a district by continually challenging laws that aren't being enforced.
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.
Sort of but what the mandate is asking for is being ignored and was never illegal afaik so nothing has really changed by adding it to the books. It's just waiting for another lawsuit challenging the nonenforcement of it all.
Fucking lemmings downvoting the only commenter who has an inkling of how this works.
The way it works is fucking stupid. Backing down from enforcing an unconstitutional law because you aren't enforcing it right now means people must suffer from unconstitutional laws instead of avoiding their negative impact.
That is a stupid fucking system.
The thing you are angry about isnt even actually happening. This is just ragebait.
The thing I'm talking about is that contesting unconstitutional laws requires someone to suffer first. That is how the system works.
Then it is clear to me that you lack a thorough understanding of how our legal system works.
And that you did not read the article OP posted. Youre angry with a figment of your own imagination.
Oklahoma has a stricter anti-establishment clause (separating church and state) in its state constitution than the US constitution. This happened because OK wrote its constitution in the 1900s in the midwest.
Having said that the Bible plan was absolutely horrendous. They were going to buy Trump-branded Bibles for $50 a piece, which contained just the public-domain King James text, and the US constitution. Complete grift.
Are we absolutely sure they didn't place an order?