Austin, et al v. Lamb, et. al

Summary

In January 2025, a group of professors from the University of Florida, Florida State University, and Florida International University filed a federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s Senate Bill 266 (SB 266), which was enacted in 2023. Represented by the ACLU of Florida, the professors argued that the law banning the use of state or federal funds for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and “identity politics” in general education unconstitutionally infringed on their academic freedom and free speech rights. They contended the law’s vague and overly broad language had disrupted their teaching, undermined course offerings, and chilled intellectual inquiry. As one example, UF political science professor Sharon Austin was denied university funding in 2024 to attend a conference she had regularly attended, with university administrators citing SB 266 as the basis for that denial.

The professors asserted that SB 266 amounted to viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, was unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment, and violated Florida’s Campus Free Expression Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief blocking enforcement of the law, emphasizing its chilling effect on faculty speech and its interference with course enrollments and academic trajectories. They also pointed out that courses such as “Principles of Sociology” and “Politics of Race” were removed from general education curricula, limiting student access to critical perspectives.

In April 2025, a U.S. District Judge denied the professors’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that they had not shown a sufficiently precise and imminent harm to warrant emergency relief. Thus, SB 266 remained in force while the underlying litigation proceeded. The state defended the statute as regulating institutional funding, not directly restricting academic speech, and the professors pledged to continue pursuing their constitutional challenge.

In September 2025, a further ruling substantially narrowed the case. The federal judge dismissed most of the professors’ claims, concluding that almost all plaintiffs lacked standing or failed to present adequate factual allegations. The only claim that survived was Sharon Austin’s First Amendment claim related to threatened funding denial under SB 266. All other claims against the state and university boards were dismissed, leaving the case to proceed in its narrower form. Most arguments in the lawsuit were dismissed, preserving only the portion tied to Austin’s funding based free speech challenge.