Identity of Speakers
-
Sharon Austin, et al.
Faculty/Staff
OtherThe plaintiffs are professors from the University of Florida, Florida State University, and Florida International University
Additional Information
-
Incident Nature:
Course Content
Lawsuit
Other
-
Incident Political Orientation:
Not Clear -
Incident Responses:
Faculty sanctioned
Litigation
State Campus Free Speech Act
-
Incident Status:
In litigation Federal District Court
- Did not involve Speech Codes
Summary
n 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 had been 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 deterred intellectual inquiry. For example, UF political science professor Sharon Austin was denied university funding in 2024 to attend a conference she had regularly attended in the past, with administrators citing SB 266 as the reason.
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 to block enforcement of the law, emphasizing its chilling effect on faculty speech and its impact on course enrollments and academic careers. They also noted that courses such as “Principles of Sociology” and “Politics of Race” were stripped from general education, reducing access to important perspectives for students.
In April 2025, a U.S. District Judge denied the professors’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding that they had not shown a specific, imminent harm sufficient to justify emergency relief. As a result, SB 266 remains in effect while the case continued. The state defended the law as a regulation of institutional funding, not a restriction on academic speech. The professors and their attorneys have vowed to continue challenging the law in court, arguing that it imposes unconstitutional constraints on Florida’s public universities and the faculty who serve them.
