On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge from a conservative group, Speech First, concerning Indiana University’s policy on reporting bias-motivated incidents. The group’s appeal sought to block the policy, arguing that it violated First Amendment rights by infringing on free speech. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves intact a lower court ruling that had dismissed the group’s request to halt the policy, which monitors and reports what the university considers bias-driven actions.
The legal battle centers on free speech and the balance between addressing hate speech and ensuring open discourse at public universities. Speech First, an advocacy organization focused on combating censorship on college campuses, argued that Indiana University’s policy violated the constitutional rights of students. The policy defines “bias incidents” as any conduct or speech motivated by prejudice meant to intimidate or marginalize individuals based on their identities, such as race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Speech First filed its lawsuit in 2024 against Indiana University President Pamela Whitten and other officials, claiming the policy’s vague language could lead to the suppression of protected speech. The group contended that students could face disciplinary action for expressing views deemed as biased, thus chilling free speech. The university, however, maintains that the policy is designed to create a respectful and inclusive campus environment.
The legal dispute reached the Supreme Court after the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling from U.S. District Judge James Hanlon in August 2024, who determined that Speech First lacked legal standing to challenge the policy. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the Court’s refusal to hear the case, citing a need for clarity on how lower courts handle such legal challenges. Thomas emphasized that, given the growing prevalence of bias-response teams on college campuses, the Court would eventually need to address the issue to resolve conflicting rulings.
Related articles: