Tag: VICTORY

  • VICTORY! Federal district court dismisses class-action suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer

    VICTORY! Federal district court dismisses class-action suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer

    DES MOINES, Iowa, Nov. 6, 2025 — A federal district court today dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit against renowned Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer, holding that the First Amendment bars the claims against her related to her October 2024 general election poll. As the court explained, “there is no free pass around the First Amendment.”

    FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101

    A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.


    Read More

    The lawsuit, brought by a subscriber to The Des Moines Register and styled as a class action, stemmed from a poll Selzer published before the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa. The suit asserted claims, including under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, alleging that Selzer’s poll, which missed the final result by a wide margin, constituted “fake news” and “fraud.”

    Selzer, represented pro bono by FIRE, pushed back. FIRE explained that commentary about a political election is core protected speech. “Fake news” is a political buzzword, not a legal cause of action. And “fraud” is a defined legal concept: intentionally lying to convince someone to part with something of value. 

    The court explained, “polls are a mere snapshot of a dynamic and changing electorate” and “the results of an opinion poll are not an actionable false representation merely because the anticipated results differ from what eventually occurred.” As the Supreme Court has said, a party cannot evade First Amendment scrutiny by “simply labeling an action one for fraud.”

    The court held the plaintiff had “no factual allegations” to support his fraud claim, instead “invok[ing] mere buzzwords and speculation” to support his claims. And not only did the court find the First Amendment barred the claims, it similarly held each claim defective under Iowa law even without the First Amendment’s protection.

    Selzer is pleased with the result:

    I am pleased to see this lawsuit has been dismissed. The First Amendment’s protection for free speech and a free press held strong. I know that I did nothing wrong and I am glad the court also concluded that there was never a valid legal claim.

    FIRE’s Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, who led Selzer’s defense, responded to the ruling: 

    This decision shows where petty politics ends and the rule of law begins. The court’s strongly worded opinion confirms that a legal claim cannot be concocted with political slogans and partisan hyperbole, and that there is no hiding from the First Amendment. This is a good day for freedom of speech.

    This lawsuit was a copycat of a still-pending suit filed by President Donald Trump against Selzer in December 2024 in which FIRE also represents her. FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick remarked, “President Trump’s suit makes the same frivolous arguments against the same defendants. We are confident it will meet the same fate.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:
    Karl de Vries, director of media relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Partial Victory for Freedom of the Press at Indiana U

    Partial Victory for Freedom of the Press at Indiana U

    The decision by Indiana University administrators to allow the Indiana Daily Student newspaper to resume occasional publication is a victory for the advocates of free expression on campus. The Student Press Law Center, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the American Association of University Professors, along with student newspapers across the country, spoke out loudly in defense of Indiana student journalists. Particular praise goes to the students at the Purdue Exponent, which printed the censored homecoming issue of the Indiana Daily Student and distributed it around Bloomington, Ind., in solidarity with fellow journalists.

    It’s rare for administrators to quickly reverse course and effectively admit they made a mistake. But while we need to celebrate a win, we also need to recognize how partial and temporary it was—and the enormous threat to freedom of the press that still exists at Indiana and beyond.

    What Indiana University administrators did was one of the worst attacks on a free press at a public university in the history of American higher education. It combined three of the most terrible types of censorship of the press: 1) imposing massive content restrictions by attempting to ban the newspaper from printing any news, 2) banning the newspaper completely from being printed when the editors refused to obey these unlawful demands and 3) firing the professor who served as newspaper adviser, student media director Jim Rodenbush, for defending freedom of the press.

    While the first two forms of repression have now been (temporarily) lifted, the last one still remains. When the newspaper adviser who was fired for opposing censorship remains fired, it’s still censorship. And Chancellor David Reingold’s decision to allow the newspaper to publish still includes severe budget cutbacks and elimination of university support for the publication.

    Suppression of a free press at Indiana is linked to its broader repression of free expression. FIRE recently ranked Indiana University as the worst public university in America for free speech (and the student newspaper’s article about this ranking reportedly was one of the reasons why the administration cracked down on the free press). The repression by Indiana administrators has been astonishing. In December 2023, Indiana University suspended professor Abdulkader Sinno for the crime of reserving a room for an event critical of Israel. At the same time, the administration also canceled its art museum exhibit of abstract art paintings by Samia Halaby, a Palestinian American artist who had been critical of the Israeli government. In 2024, Indiana officials banned all expression on campus between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., which a federal judge paused while an ACLU lawsuit against the censorship continues.

    In my 2020 report for the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement about freedom of the press on campus, I noted some of the severe threats to free expression: punishing independent media advisers who fail to rein in student newspapers, censoring campus papers directly, restricting access to campus, limiting the rights of faculty and staff to speak to reporters, and many more. But perhaps the greatest threat to journalism on campus is economic, when student newspapers are defunded and eventually decline from a thousand budget cuts.

    The dire economic environment for newspapers across the country has also affected student publications. The drop in advertising revenue has hit campus newspapers, and many universities would rather put resources into public relations staff under the control of administrators rather than support student journalists who challenge them.

    What universities can do to respect freedom of the press: First, do no harm. Stop trying to censor newspapers. Enact free expression policies that protect freedom of the campus press and the rights of their advisers and sources.

    Second, integrate journalism into the curriculum. Offer classes about journalism, but recognize that many different classes (and especially writing-focused classes) can encourage students to publish their work, both online and in print. Good journalism is just good writing, and colleges should encourage students to publicly express their ideas on a wide range of topics.

    Third, support campus journalism financially. Colleges ought to provide a substantial fund to campus newspapers to publish ads promoting events and activities on campus. By allocating this money for newspaper ads and then allowing campus programs and student organizations to freely use it for their events, colleges can promote what they are doing while supporting independent journalism. The belief that student newspapers shouldn’t be subsidized and must independently finance every word they print is a strange concept for colleges that are devoted to subsidizing the free exchange of ideas.

    Student newspapers are the most important extramural activity on college campuses, and more essential than much of the courses, research and administrative work that receives vastly greater funding. A campus newspaper is more than just a critical source of information about what happens at colleges: It’s an education for writers and readers alike. It’s a bridge between the campus and the community, where growing news deserts make student papers more important than ever. And the campus newspaper is a symbol of intellectual debate, the most public place at a college where ideas are exchanged and arguments between different viewpoints are heard.

    Source link

  • VICTORY: Federal court halts Texas’ ‘no First Amendment after dark’ campus speech ban

    VICTORY: Federal court halts Texas’ ‘no First Amendment after dark’ campus speech ban

    AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 14, 2025 — A federal judge today issued a preliminary injunction blocking the University of Texas System from enforcing a new Texas law that bans virtually all protected expression on public university campuses after dark.

    In his ruling, Judge David Alan Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found that students challenging the law on First Amendment grounds were likely to succeed on the merits, and blocked the law from going into effect while the case makes its way through the courts.

    “The First Amendment does not have a bedtime of 10:00 p.m.,” the District Court held. “The burden is on the government to prove that its actions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. It has not done so.”

    “Today’s ruling is a victory not only for our plaintiffs, but all of those who express themselves on college campuses across Texas,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression senior supervising attorney JT Morris. “The First Amendment protects their freedom of speech on campus, every hour of the day, every week of the year.”

    Passed in the wake of several protests over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Senate Bill 2972 reversed Texas’s previously strong statute enshrining campus free speech protections into state law, and would have forced public universities to ban “expressive activities” from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., which it defined as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.”

    That’s a shockingly sweeping ban that would have empowered colleges to punish everything from wearing a T-shirt with a message, to writing an op-ed, to playing music — even worship. That’s an intolerable attack on freedom of speech at public universities, where First Amendment protections must remain indispensable. 

    “Texas’ law is so overbroad that any public university student chatting in the dorms past 10 p.m. would have been in violation,” said FIRE senior attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “We’re thankful that the court stepped in and halted a speech ban that inevitably would’ve been weaponized to censor speech that administrators disagreed with.”

    Another provision from Texas’ law required public universities to ban students from inviting outside speakers, or using amplified sound or percussive instruments during the last two weeks of any academic term. FIRE challenged those provisions on behalf of a diverse group of student groups and organizations who would be adversely affected if Texas’s law was allowed to go into effect on UT System campuses:

    • The Fellowship of Christian University Students (FOCUS) at UT-Dallas, a campus ministry group whose evening prayer gatherings and guest‑led services would be curtailed by the law’s nighttime ban on “expressive activities” and its ban on invited speakers.
    • The Retrograde, an independent student newspaper at UT-Dallas whose newsgathering, writing, and posting often occur after 10 p.m.
    • Young Americans for Liberty, an Austin-based, pro-liberty nonprofit with campus chapters throughout Texas that organize petitions, protests, and speaker events. (FIRE is also representing Zall Arvandi, a student member of YAL who attends UT-Austin).
    • Texas Society of Unconventional Drummers, a UT-Austin student percussion performance group known for their end‑of‑semester shows that would be barred by the law’s ban on percussion during finals week.
    • Strings Attached, a UT-Dallas student music group that stages public concerts — including in the final two weeks of term and sometimes using amplification.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • VICTORY: Colorado repeals restrictive media policy

    VICTORY: Colorado repeals restrictive media policy

    Credentialed media at the University of Colorado are once again free to share simulations of game footage. The university has removed a provision from its media policy that barred outlets from sharing “[s]imulated video or slideshows mimicking game action.”

    As FIRE wrote in our letter to CU, the policy impermissibly restrained journalists from choosing to use “‘simulated game action’ or a slideshow to display game data.” That kind of choice is exactly the sort of editorial decision the First Amendment requires be left to journalists, not the government. 

    Conditioning credentials on this unconstitutional requirement restricted the First Amendment freedoms of journalists miles away from the field, court, or swimming pool. While universities can sell exclusive broadcasting rights to their sporting events, they can’t dictate how media members report on what happened in an athletic competition.. 

    Our letter called on CU to repeal the policy. Thankfully, it did.

    This welcome change comes as a direct result of that letter. In his reply, Athletic Director Rick George acknowledged that the university’s policy was far broader than administrators had first realized. He also affirmed CU’s strong commitment to free expression and committed to repealing the policy, which went well beyond the university’s obligations as a member of the Big 12 Conference and signatory to the conference’s media rights deal.

    CU’s response here is exactly what universities should do when their policies fall short of their First Amendment obligations: acknowledge the problem, commit to protecting expression, and promptly fix the issue. And it’s surely part of the reason the university is ranked fifth in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings, with a majority of students saying CU is at least somewhat clear that the administration protects free speech on campus.

    FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative is pleased to see CU put the free press over profits. Other universities should take a page from the Buffaloes’ book.

    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734). If you’re faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).



    Source link

  • The Victory for Harvard Is a Victory for Democracy

    The Victory for Harvard Is a Victory for Democracy

    The Sept. 3 ruling for Harvard by federal judge Allison Burroughs is the most important decision so far for defending academic freedom against the attacks by the Trump administration. The permanent injunction against the Trump administration’s ban on funding to Harvard will eliminate much of the Trump regime’s ability to hold Harvard hostage—unless it is able to find a higher court willing to defend these illicit attacks on higher education and free expression.

    With this ruling, Columbia’s decision to submit to the Trump administration and pay $221 million looks not merely spineless but financially stupid. While former Harvard president Lawrence Summers praised Columbia’s submission and urged Harvard to obey, a large group of Harvard faculty and students fortunately pressured their administrators to hold firm, at least for long enough to enable a court ruling that restores the money researchers at Harvard are entitled to.

    Now that this ruling has been won, Harvard needs to take the fight to its conclusion. It cannot settle with the Trump administration and give away this victory, since that would leave Harvard at the mercy of Trump officials anytime they decided to punish Harvard again. A settlement by Harvard now would be not only cowardly but crazy.

    The conservatives on the Supreme Court may soon be forced to choose between obeying the law and the Constitution or obeying Donald Trump, and they have shown little desire to defy the president’s commands no matter how illicit they are.

    The most likely path for the Supreme Court justices to help the Trump administration destroy higher education is jurisdictional. The Trump administration argued unsuccessfully that this entire lawsuit must be heard in another federal court because it relates to federal contracts.

    The court could order that the legal process begin anew in a different court, reinstate the Trump bans against Harvard and hope that the long pathway to a resolution would pressure Harvard to give Trump his $500 million extortion and agree to suppress academic freedom without the Supreme Court needing to review a case where the law is unquestionably on Harvard’s side.

    But while the unprincipled political hacks who dominate the Supreme Court make that evasion of moral and legal responsibility a possible result, it’s also possible that enough conservative justices have a modicum of integrity left to question the obviously illegal and unconstitutional attacks on Harvard—not because they like Harvard, but because they recognize the necessity of the Supreme Court restraining a president who is indifferent to the law and the Constitution.

    It’s important to point out just how dumb the Trump administration officials are. By issuing a May 5 freeze order stating, “Today’s letter marks the end of new grants for the University,” the Trump administration removed any possible doubt that it had made a final decision against Harvard in violation of the law and the First Amendment.

    If the Trump administration had simply frozen grants but pretended to make an ongoing evaluation, it might have created enough doubt to survive judicial scrutiny long enough to force Harvard into submission. Instead, the overwhelming desire to punish Harvard by any means possible may ultimately lose this case for the Trump administration. For all of the partisan posturing and ideological bias, some judges still will follow the law, and the law is clearly on Harvard’s side, as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression noted in what it called “the flatly unlawful and unconstitutional means used by the Trump administration in this attempted hostile takeover.”

    Every other university now has a clear path for what it needs to do: resist, sue, win. It’s absolutely shocking that Harvard has been the only university to (however reluctantly) undertake the aggressive litigation approach that is the only reasonable strategy against the repression of the Trump regime.

    The fight by Harvard against Trump’s authoritarianism could be a victory not just for higher education, but for democracy. But Harvard needs to keep on fighting if it wants to prevail.

    Source link

  • Three takeaways from Harvard’s victory over the Trump administration’s funding freeze

    Three takeaways from Harvard’s victory over the Trump administration’s funding freeze

    A federal district court in Massachusetts found yesterday that the government violated Harvard University’s First Amendment rights, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it stripped the university of billions in federal funding last April. At the time, the Trump administration’s explanations for the cuts strongly suggested its actions were based on hostility towards Harvard’s political viewpoint, though the government eventually shifted to an argument that they were an effort to fight campus anti-Semitism. 

    Much of the opinion covers a dispute about what court has jurisdiction to hear the case. But when it comes to the First Amendment and Title VI, the court’s reasoning echoes what FIRE has said publicly and in our own amicus brief in the Harvard case: Pursuing the worthy end of fighting anti-Semitic and other unlawful discrimination on campus does not justify flatly unlawful and unconstitutional methods.

    Here are FIRE’s three quick takeaways about this decision and what it means for campus rights. 

    Government cannot force private institutions like Harvard to punish speech protected by the First Amendment

    Like many universities, Harvard receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year in research grants and student aid. That money comes with both formal legal requirements and less-formal leverage over how the university operates. 

    In a letter it sent to Harvard in April, the federal government tried to use this leverage to make sweeping demands of Harvard if it wished to continue receiving federal funds, including prohibiting the admission of international students deemed “hostile” to “American values,” political litmus tests in the name of viewpoint diversity, and even the derecognition of pro-Palestinian student groups. 

    As our nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, if Harvard was unwilling to defend its rights in court, it was unlikely that any other institution would have the fortitude to do so.

    But as FIRE’s amicus brief pointed out, “the government cannot strongarm private actors into punishing speech that the First Amendment protects from state intrusion,” noting that the Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle just last year in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, . In Vullo, the NRA accused New York state financial services chief Maria Vullo of using state power to coerce companies not to do business with the NRA because of the state’s opposition to the organization’s pro-gun viewpoint. 

    The district court read the law the same straightforward way. Comparing the government’s actions at each step to the actions at issue in Vullo, the court found: 

    Defendants (like Maria Vullo) urged and threatened Harvard (in the position of the insurer) to hire faculty and make curricula and research choices that better aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints, to the detriment of professors and researchers with competing views (like the NRA). Pursuant to Vullo, using this type of coercion to suppress speech, third-party or otherwise, is not permissible.

    Whether it’s a state or federal official doesn’t matter: They may not use their power to coerce private actors to unconstitutionally do the government’s bidding. 

    Feds must follow Title VI if it wants to strip funding for Title VI violations

    FIRE has also expressed alarm about the government’s failure to follow the procedures Congress prescribed when stripping funding from Harvard (and other universities) in the name of fighting race, color, and national origin discrimination (including anti-Semitic discrimination) under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

    Being stripped of federal funding under civil rights law has long been seen as a nuclear option. The loss would likely shut down all but the richest colleges and universities by barring them not just from federal research grants but also from federal student aid, such as Pell grants and federally subsidized loans. That’s why Title VI requires the government to give institutions like Harvard “notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to come into compliance voluntarily before the government can terminate funding,” as we wrote in our amicus brief. Yet the government skipped the process and failed to do so.

    Again, predictably, this failure did not escape the court. It outlined the same procedures to which FIRE pointed in its brief, noting that it was “undisputed” that the government did not comply with them before freezing and terminating funding.  Rejecting the government’s arguments that it could “combat anti-Semitism” at Harvard by terminating funding under different provisions, the court found that “Congress has…passed a law that explicitly provides for when and how an agency can terminate federal funding to address this type of discrimination—and that law is Title VI, which dictates that ‘no such action shall be taken until the department or agency’ has gone through the appropriate procedures.” 

    Harvard’s free speech record is terrible, but be thankful one university found its spine

    FIRE has always been a critic of Harvard’s handling of student and faculty free speech issues. When I say always, I mean that literally. As we told the court, Harvard’s repeated failure to honor student and faculty rights over decades was a major contributor to Boston civil liberties lawyer (and Harvard Law alumnus) Harvey Silverglate’s decision to co-found FIRE in 1999. But none of Harvard’s problems excuse the government’s decision to make these unlawful, unconstitutional demands. 

    FAQ: Responding to common questions about the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration

    Harvard vs. Trump isn’t just a headline, but a battle to decide whether the government can use funding to force ideological conformity. In this explainer, FIRE makes clear why not.


    Read More

    Harvard should be commended for standing up for its legal rights rather than settling under this intense government pressure. As our nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, if Harvard was unwilling to defend its rights in court, it was unlikely that any other institution would have the fortitude to do so. 

    The decision should also serve as a needed wake-up call for government agencies charged with enforcing our civil rights laws. As we wrote with regard to Columbia University, which recently settled with the government under similar circumstances, there’s plenty of reason to have legitimate concerns about Title VI violations on college campuses. But Title VI requires that the federal government follow the appropriate procedures for a reason. When followed in good faith, the process increases the chance of just outcomes for colleges, students, and faculty while combatting unlawful discrimination. Federal agencies must follow our Constitution and laws while they do their important work. 

    It’s really that simple.

    Source link

  • VICTORY! University of North Texas system lifts drag ‘pause’ after FIRE/ACLU of TX letter

    VICTORY! University of North Texas system lifts drag ‘pause’ after FIRE/ACLU of TX letter

    DENTON, Texas, Aug. 28, 2025 — The University of North Texas system confirmed that it has lifted its “pause” on drag performances across its campuses, in response to a demand letter from civil liberties organizations informing the school that it was violating its students’ First Amendment rights.

    On March 28, UNT System Chancellor Michael Williams issued a system-wide directive announcing an immediate “pause” on drag performances on campus. Williams’ directive came days after a similar drag ban from the Texas A&M University System was blocked by a federal judge following a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

    On Aug. 14, FIRE and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas sent a letter informing Williams that his “pause” violated the Constitution for the same reasons.

    “UNT cannot justify banning an entire class of protected expression from campus performance venues on the basis that such expression might cause offense,” the letter read. “In the same way that some people may not appreciate UNT allowing students, staff, or visitors to engage in prayer on campus or wear t-shirts supporting rival universities, the fear that such speech may be ‘offensive’ to some is not a constitutionally permissible reason to ban it.”

    Yesterday, the UNT Office of General Counsel responded to the FIRE/ACLU-TX letter and announced that in light of a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocking yet another drag ban in Texas — this time at West Texas A&M University — “the UNT System’s temporary pause on drag performances has ended.”

    “If campus officials can silence expression simply because some find it ‘offensive,’ no one’s speech will be safe,” said FIRE Strategic Campaigns Counsel Amanda Nordstrom “Today it’s drag shows, but tomorrow it could be political rallies, art exhibits, or even bake sales. From West Texas to North Texas and any direction you look, the message is clear: drag is protected expression, and the show must go on.”

    “UNT repealed its drag ban following public backlash and legal pressure,” said ACLU of Texas Attorney Chloe Kempf. “As we and the courts have repeatedly made clear, banning drag is plainly unconstitutional. Drag is a cherished source of joy and liberation for the LGBTQIA+ community — and this reversal ensures students can once again freely express and celebrate their identities on campus.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Kristi Gross, Press Strategist, ACLU of Texas: [email protected]

    Source link

  • VICTORY! 5th Circuit blocks West Texas A&M’s unconstitutional drag ban

    VICTORY! 5th Circuit blocks West Texas A&M’s unconstitutional drag ban

    NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 18, 2025 — In a victory for student expression on campus, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today overruled a lower court to halt an unconstitutional ban on student drag performances at West Texas A&M University.

    In March 2023, West Texas A&M President Walter Wendler announced that he was unilaterally canceling a planned campus drag show hosted by LGBTQ+ organization Spectrum WT to raise money for suicide prevention. In a campus-wide email, Wendler said that he was canceling the event because he believes it offends and demeans women.

    As a public official at a state university, the First Amendment bars Wendler from censoring a performance based on nothing more than his personal disapproval. But astonishingly, Wendler admitted he was canceling the show even though “the law of the land appears to require” him to allow it.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression quickly jumped into action, filing a lawsuit against Wendler and West Texas A&M on behalf of Spectrum WT, its president Bear Bright, and vice president Marcus Stovall. FIRE’s lawsuit seeks to halt Wendler’s unlawful censorship and obtain damages for violating the students’ clearly established First Amendment rights.

    In September 2023, the district court denied FIRE’s motion for a preliminary injunction. While the case made its way through the courts, Wendler canceled a second drag show planned by Spectrum WT in March 2024.

    Today’s ruling from the Fifth Circuit overturns the district court’s ruling and places a temporary hold on Wendler’s enforcement of his illegal directive, allowing Spectrum WT and any other student organization to put on drag shows while litigation continues.

    The majority opinion from Judge Leslie H. Southwick found a substantial likelihood that Spectrum WT’s First Amendment claims would prevail on the merits.

    “Because theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, and because we find the plaintiffs’ drag show is protected expression,” the Fifth Circuit held Wendler’s censorship failed to pass constitutional muster. 

    “FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler’s unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M,” said FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney JT Morris. “This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • VICTORY: New York high school to strengthen First Amendment protections following FIRE lawsuit

    VICTORY: New York high school to strengthen First Amendment protections following FIRE lawsuit

    CHAPPAQUA, NY, June 25, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression agreed to drop its First Amendment lawsuit against Chappaqua Central School District after the district’s board of education adopted a robust First Amendment regulation that will protect the constitutional free speech rights of its students.

    FIRE sued the district in 2024 on behalf of O.J., an LGBTQ+ student suspended for violating the district’s “hate speech” definition in its code of conduct because he used the words “faggot” and “twink” in a rap song recorded in his friend’s home after school. In the song, O.J. rapped the refrain, “faggot, fart, balls.” The song also included another person’s lyrics, which contained violent imagery. After O.J.’s friend uploaded the song to a music-sharing website, the school received three complaints and promptly suspended the student.

    “In the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Court held that students’ off-campus, nondisruptive speech is protected by the First Amendment,” said FIRE attorney Colin McDonell. “That is true even when the speech receives criticism.”

    In communications with the district, O.J.’s father cited Mahanoy and argued the school could not punish his son for his off-campus speech because it did not disrupt the educational environment. When this proved unsuccessful, O.J.’s father reached out to FIRE for assistance. On April 15, 2024, FIRE sued the district on behalf of O.J. and his father in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York.

    After commencement of the lawsuit, FIRE and the district worked together to craft a First Amendment regulation that would protect its students’ rights to express themselves both on and off school campus, consistent with and reconciled with Mahanoy and the New York State Dignity for All Students Act and its regulations. The district’s insurer also agreed to pay $70,000 to FIRE, encompassing attorneys’ fees, and the district removed the disciplinary action based on the song from the student’s file.

    “With its adoption of a First Amendment regulation, the board of education has affirmed the rights of its students to engage in protected speech on and off campus,” said FIRE Senior Attorney Greg H. Greubel. “We’re pleased that we could work with the board to avoid further litigation and turn this situation into a positive outcome for our client and all students in the district.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Sector ambivalent after Labor’s landslide election victory

    Sector ambivalent after Labor’s landslide election victory

    • Anthony Albanese has secured a second term for the ruling Labor party, beating out the Coalition to win Australia’s federal election.
    • His win has attracted mixed views from key stakeholders, with some welcoming Albanese’s return and others warning that the sector may have no more trump cards to play.
    • It follows pledges from both Labor and the Coalition to increase the price of student visas.

    The Labor party stormed its way to victory after a battle against the Peter Dutton-led Coalition, with both sides making controversial election promises to vastly increase student visa fee fees as immigration continues to dominate political discourse in Australia.

    The international education sector is still catching its breath as it takes in the result after months of hostile rhetoric from both parties – with each having promised crushing de facto caps on overseas students as tensions rise over Australia’s housing crisis and growing anger about mass immigration.

    But early reactions from sector leaders indicate mixed feelings over Albanese’s second term.

    Chief executive officer of the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) Phil Honeywood said the result was “hopefully the best outcome” for the sector. He pointed out that the Labor government “has at least proactively proactively consulted” with stakeholders before announcing major policy changes – no matter how unwelcome they are.

    Now that Labor has been returned with a large majority, the hope is that it will be electorally confident enough to not target international students as the cause of the rent crisis
    Phil Honeywood, IEAA

    In contrast, he noted, the Coalition did not speak to any key stakeholders before unveiling its “draconian policy framework for our sector” – hardline proposals including a cap on new international student arrivals at a scant 240,000 per year and steep visa fee hikes.

    “Now that Labor has been returned with a large majority, the hope is that it will be electorally confident enough to not target international students as the cause of the rent crisis,” he remarked.

    On the other hand, Lexis English managing director Ian Pratt predicted that Labor’s election win would “give little comfort to an under-siege international education sector”.

    “An emboldened education minister Jason Clare is likely to take advantage of a newly compliant Senate to re-introduce the deeply flawed ESOS Amendment Bill – the  ‘capping legislation’ rejected in the previous term,” he said. 

    And he warned that with Labour expected to increase its majority, “industry peak bodies will have few levers to pull”. 

    “Initial focus will be on promoting small, sensible reforms, and likely to involve a push for a lower-fee ‘short-term’ student visa, catering for ELICOS and study abroad enrolments that do not generally contribute to net overseas migration figures,” he predicted.

    “There is also likely to be a push for a more transparent visa assessment process and a sensible approach to capping. Whether the returning government will feel any need to engage more positively with the sector remains to be seen.”

    The Labor party has repeatedly made attacks on the international education sector in recent months, first moving to cap new international student numbers to 270,000 under the thwarted ESOS Bill and then proposing a new Ministerial Direction tying individual caps to specific institutions after the Coalition blocked ESOS in a dramatic Senate battle.

    The party drew criticism from the sector last week after it made a last-minute pledge to increase student visa fees to AUD$2,000, up from the current AUD$1,600, drawing ire from some stakeholders for making the promise after early voting had already commenced.

    This is a developing story. Please check back for updates over the coming days…

    Source link