Supreme Court declines to review controversial college bias response teams while Justices Thomas and Alito issue sharp dissent, warning of threats to campus free speech across America.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to university bias response teams, which operate at over 450 U.S. colleges
- Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the Court should resolve an important circuit split on the issue
- The case involved Speech First, representing Indiana University students who claimed the school’s bias response policy chilled their free speech
- Multiple federal appeals courts remain divided on whether these university policies violate the First Amendment
Free Speech Battle Divides Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to bypass a case challenging university bias response teams has sparked significant controversy, particularly among conservatives concerned about free speech on college campuses. The Court declined to review a lawsuit brought by Speech First, an advocacy group representing students at Indiana University who claimed the university’s bias response system infringed on their First Amendment rights.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito issued a strong dissent, highlighting what they view as a critical threat to free expression at American universities. With more than 450 colleges and universities now operating such systems, the dissenters argued this issue represents a widespread concern worthy of the Court’s attention.
Clash Over Campus Speech Policies
Bias response teams typically encourage students to report incidents of perceived bias, including speech that might be considered offensive on topics such as immigration, gender identity, and race. Though not directly punitive in most cases, critics argue these systems create an atmosphere of surveillance that causes students to self-censor controversial views to avoid being reported.
Indiana University’s policy defines bias incidents as conduct or speech motivated by prejudice. When incidents are reported, they are reviewed and may lead to meetings or referrals for support services, though the university maintains that their system does not directly discipline students. The majority of these reports do not identify specific individuals, according to university officials.
Circuit Court Split Creates Legal Uncertainty
A major concern highlighted by the dissenting justices is the current split among federal appeals courts on whether these policies violate free speech protections. The Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have ruled that bias response teams can unconstitutionally chill student speech, while the Fourth and Seventh Circuits have reached opposite conclusions.
The Seventh Circuit previously ruled against Speech First in this case, finding that the students failed to demonstrate an “objectively reasonable chilling effect” from Indiana University’s policies. Thomas criticized this standard as “very likely wrong” and inconsistent with established precedent on government regulations that may inhibit expression.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case leaves in place significant uncertainty about the constitutional limits of university bias reporting systems. Conservative advocates argue these systems disproportionately target traditional viewpoints on issues like immigration, abortion, and gender identity by labeling them potentially “biased” or “harmful.”
With the Supreme Court declining to weigh in, universities across different federal circuits will continue operating under different constitutional standards. This creates a situation where students at one school may have greater speech protections than those at another institution merely because of geographic location.
