SCOTUS Declines College Bias Response Team Challenge; Thomas, Alito Dissent
The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to weigh in on whether college bias response teams violate constitutional rights.
Although Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed interest in addressing the issue, the Court opted not to hear a lawsuit brought by Speech First against Indiana University officials. The group, which advocates for students’ First Amendment protections, had hoped the case would settle the legality of these teams.
Speech First has repeatedly challenged colleges nationwide for implementing bias response teams—groups that invite anonymous reports of biased behavior and may involve disciplinary measures for students.
This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has declined such a case. A similar lawsuit filed by Speech First against Virginia Tech last year was also turned away. Following that, Virginia Tech dismantled its bias response team.
Justice Thomas, reiterating his concerns from the Virginia Tech case, wrote on Monday: “Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student’s right to challenge such programs.”
He added, “The Court’s refusal to intervene now leaves students subject to a ‘patchwork of First Amendment rights,’ with a student’s ability to challenge his university’s bias response policies varying depending on accidents of geography.”
Speech First argued that the Indiana case further complicated the “circuit split” on whether students can sue over such policies. Their petition stated that universities have found “subtler, more sophisticated ways to chill disfavored speech,” saying bias response teams are an example.
“Instead of outright banning biased speech, these teams deter it by threatening students with adverse consequences,” the petition claimed. “They also burden it by imposing a series of administrative and other costs on students who commit ‘bias incidents.’”
Attorneys representing Indiana University described Speech First as a “frequent flier of lawsuits against higher-education institutions,” and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal. They argued, “The case is thus not a remotely serviceable vehicle for reaching Speech First’s purportedly split-closing question. No such split exists, and this appeal would lead nowhere anyway.”
The Supreme Court has also been in the spotlight recently due to other notable rulings.
Just last week, it declined to reconsider a previous decision upholding buffer zones around abortion clinics. This came despite opposition from Justices Thomas and Alito, who again dissented.
Two cases—involving local laws in Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey—were denied review. These ordinances restrict anti-abortion activists from engaging in “sidewalk counseling” near clinics.
Citing the precedent set by Hill v. Colorado in 2000, lower courts upheld both local laws. That decision found that Colorado’s buffer zone did not breach First Amendment protections.
Since Hill, anti-abortion advocates have sought to overturn the ruling, with some conservative justices stating that it infringes on free speech. These efforts gained momentum following the Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade.
“Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty,” Justice Thomas wrote.
Echoing that sentiment, conservative legal figure Paul Clement argued in a petition for Carbondale’s ordinance to be overturned: “Hill was wrong the day it was decided, and the case for overruling it has only strengthened ever since.”
Clement represented Coalition Life, an anti-abortion group involved in “sidewalk counseling,” which challenged the city’s 24-year-old ordinance. The group also garnered support from 15 Republican state attorneys general, Alliance Defending Freedom, and other like-minded organizations.
However, Carbondale's attorneys urged the justices to reject the appeal. “Petitioner wants to fast-track a request that this Court overturn Hill just as it overturned Roe v. Wade,” wrote Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general. “This case is a far cry from an ideal—or even passable—vehicle for revisiting Hill.”
A similar legal effort was brought by Jeryl Turco in Englewood, New Jersey. Turco opposed a buffer zone established in 2014 to prevent aggressive protests by the Bread of Life group near an abortion clinic. Although not affiliated with that group, Turco argued the measure restricted her ability to engage in peaceful sidewalk counseling, violating her First Amendment rights.
Her attorney, Jay Sekulow—chief counsel at the conservative American Center for Law and Justice and a lawyer for former President Trump during his first impeachment—presented the case.
Englewood countered by arguing the case lacked broad applicability. “It is extremely fact-sensitive and involves material credibility issues that the District Court has resolved,” the city stated, noting that Turco’s particular style of sidewalk counseling made the case unique.