Identity of Speakers
-
Plaintiffs
Faculty/Staff
OtherFive professors and one student from the University of Alabama and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, along with the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP.
Resources
Additional Information
-
Incident Nature:
Other
-
Incident Political Orientation:
Not Clear -
Incident Responses:
Faculty sanctioned
Student sanctioned
Rally or Protests
University administration invoked formal speech code in response
University administration changed university policy as a consequence
State Campus Free Speech Act
Title IX or other federal statute
-
Incident Status:
In litigation Federal District Court
In litigation Federal Court of Appeals
Appealed
- Was Speech Code incident
Summary
In March 13, 2024, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed Senate Bill 129 into law. The statute prohibited the use of state funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at public colleges and universities, restricted instruction that could be interpreted as endorsing certain divisive concepts related to race, sex, religion, and identity, and required public institutions to enforce restroom use based on biological sex assigned at birth. The law took effect on October 1, 2024. After its enactment, faculty members and students reported changes to curricula, the closure or defunding of student groups and affinity spaces, and increased administrative oversight of academic programs, raising concerns about the law’s effects on classroom instruction and campus climate.
On January 10, 2025, professors and a student from the University of Alabama and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, together with the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama challenging Senate Bill 129. Represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the ACLU of Alabama, and private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that the law imposed viewpoint based restrictions on academic speech in violation of the First Amendment and discriminated against Black students and faculty in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The complaint asserted that the statute’s broad and indeterminate language chilled protected classroom expression and targeted programs and discussions addressing race, racism, and inequality.
The district court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in June 2025. Faculty and student plaintiffs testified that the law had already affected teaching and learning, including warnings from administrators about course content, scrutiny of academic programs addressing social justice topics, and the elimination of student organizations that had previously received institutional support. On August 14, 2025, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs had not met the standard for emergency relief and reasoning that the law did not prohibit objective discussion of the covered topics.
On December 2, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit challenging the district court’s decision. In their appellate brief, the appellants argued that the lower court misapplied First Amendment principles governing academic speech, failed to account for the law’s chilling effect, and incorrectly discounted evidence of ongoing harm. They contended that Senate Bill 129 operated as viewpoint discrimination by allowing discussion of certain topics only if framed in a manner approved by the state. The case remained pending before the Eleventh Circuit.
