After Argument: The Tenth Circuit and Limitations on What Can be Taught in Classrooms

This is an analysis of oral arguments from March 17, 2026. Panel: Judges Hartz, Phillips, Moritz. The Data Suggests Oklahoma Has the Better of This Panel

Four and a half years of litigation in Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond was encapsulated in roughly thirty-three minutes of oral argument. My previous post on this case went through the issues on appeal. What those minutes of argument revealed, read against the panel’s records and the transcript data, points toward a relatively narrow outcome favorable to Oklahoma — with one significant qualification that keeps the door open for plaintiffs on a specific piece of the statute.

That qualification is worth noting. The weight of the transcript, the composition of the panel, and the analytical gaps that went unanswered by both counsel point in a single direction: the Tenth Circuit is most likely to affirm the district court’s partial injunction largely as it stands, reject the broader vagueness challenge, and dispose of the First Amendment right-to-receive claim without extended analysis. The probability the court extends the injunction further is real but requires a specific condition to obtain. The probability Oklahoma walks away with the injunction reversed entirely is lower than the state’s briefing position suggests.

The speaker timeline above tells the structural story of the argument before the substance begins. Sykes took the bulk of the full argument window — the dense cluster of magenta marks spread from the opening through rebuttal reflects a counsel who was interrupted constantly and early. Hartz’s green marks are distributed across the entire argument window, including well into Flanagan’s time, showing a presiding judge who remained actively engaged through both sides rather than front-loading his questions at plaintiffs.