������ýapp�ٷ�

Despite decades of First Amendment jurisprudence making clear that university students possess full First Amendment rights, the district court in Speech First, Inc. v. Cartwright somehow misapplied K-12 restrictions to students in higher education. FIREfiled an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiff-Appellant Speech First, Inc., who sued the University of Central Florida for its unconstitutional speech code. Amicus FIRE argues the district court incorrectly applied the 1969 Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District — which governs speech restrictions in K-12 schooling — to a university setting. Analyzing public university policies that restrict what adult college students may say through the lens of a ruling crafted for grade schoolers under administrative supervision flouts both well-settled law and common sense. 

The district court further erred in permitting the university’s policies to regulate student speech beyond the constitutional requirements provided by Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education — in which the Supreme Court defined a careful balance that upholds First Amendment protections and federal anti-discrimination law. In order to pass constitutional muster, university harassment policies can only place limitations on conduct when it is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it deprives students of the educational opportunities provided by the school. UCF’s policy, in contrast, regulates speech that falls short of this exacting standard. ������ýapp�ٷ�’s brief also shows the sweeping censorship that occurs on campuses when universities refuse to abide by the standard set in Davis, resulting in a climate of self-censorship and chilled speech. Our brief urges the Eleventh Circuit to reverse this decision and make clear that the district court erred in misapplying key precedent.

On May 2, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling in an opinion in line with ������ýapp�ٷ�’s amicus brief. The appeals court joined other circuits which have recently held that policies asking students to report their peers’ protected speech chills free expression.