ACLU lawsuit over Indiana's college intellectual diversity law is dismissed
In his July 23 order, Judge Richard L. Young wrote that the legal complaint was premature. The case also lacks standing, he said, because universities have not taken or threatened enforcement actions against faculty members.
"The court finds Plaintiffs have adequately shown they have an actual fear of enforcement that has chilled their protected speech," wrote Young, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton. "The issue is whether that fear is well-founded."
Last September, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Hoosier professors who claim the state law infringes on academic freedom and their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In a statement to IndyStar, ACLU of Indiana spokesperson Laura Forbes said the organization is disappointed in the decision and is considering its options.
When Senate Bill 202 progressed through the Indiana Statehouse in 2024, professors decried the legislation, claiming the bill would stifle academic freedom and damage higher education outcomes, recruitment and prowess.
Academic freedom is defined as the ability for an institution's faculty and staff members to build curriculum, research and pursue knowledge without interference from government officials and administrators, according to several First Amendment organizations. Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have labeled academic freedom as protected under the First Amendment.
SB 202 requires the state's public universities, when evaluating a faculty member's tenure, to consider whether they have embraced free expression and "intellectual diversity" in the classroom and if they have expressed political views unrelated to their discipline while teaching.
It also directed universities to stand up a process for students to report professors on those grounds. If a university finds that a professor is teaching contrary to the law, the professor may not be granted tenure or be denied a promotion.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Spencer Deery, R-Lafayette, was enacted in July 2024. A year in, a total of 14 complaints have been filed at Indiana University, Ball State University, Indiana State University and Ivy Tech University. It's unclear whether any disciplinary action has been taken on them yet.
The ACLU's complaint argues that the law was not adequately defined, and the professors have changed the content and pedagogy of their courses in fear of disciplinary action. An ACLU news release said the law could chill course debate over concerns that unfounded theories must be given the same credence as "rigorously studied academic analysis."
The lawsuit was the ACLU's second attempt to challenge the law. It first challenged SB 202 in May 2024, but that effort was dismissed after the judge said the plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction to sue.
The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
4 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'
Boston Globe
34 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Stanford newspaper challenges legal basis for student deportations
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The lawsuit says that the newspaper, which is open to all students and has more than 150 members, according to the complaint, has weathered resignations and withdrawn stories by noncitizens who were concerned that publishing content about Israel or the conditions in the Gaza Strip could leave them vulnerable to deportation. Advertisement The climate of fear the lawsuit cites at Stanford follows a spate of arrests earlier this year, when the Trump administration began targeting prominent student activists in March, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, over their activism in speaking out against the Israeli government and the mounting death toll in Gaza. Advertisement 'They are going after lawfully present noncitizens for bedrock speech, like authoring an op-ed and going to protest,' said Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the foundation. 'And unless you have a blue passport with an eagle on it that says United States of America, they think they can throw you out of the country for it.' In those and other cases, immigration agents arrested the students after Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked the provision, deeming the students a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In each case, Rubio personally signed off on the decision to revoke a student visa or render a lawful permanent resident deportable after determining that those interests were at stake. 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy,' the lawsuit says. The new lawsuit mirrored many elements of a case brought by another group, the American Association of University Professors, which is seeking to block the Trump administration from pursuing what it describes as a policy of 'ideological deportations' -- using the law to target activists based on their shared criticism of Israel and its conduct in the war. That case was argued before a federal judge during a two-week trial in Boston in July, and he is expected to decide this month whether to block the deportations on First Amendment grounds. The case raised similar concerns about chilled speech on college campuses, with testimony from faculty at several universities about how dramatically noncitizen academics had withdrawn from public life. Advertisement But lawyers in that case explicitly stopped short of arguing that using the foreign policy provision to target student demonstrators was unconstitutional, sidestepping a risky gambit in court over whether Rubio had abused the authority. That caution came as William G. Young, the judge in the case, expressed skepticism throughout the trial about whether he could rule against Rubio or others in the Trump administration given that they were exercising powers given to them by Congress. 'It seems to me we have a new administration who has, you know, absolutely the primary authority over the foreign policy of the United States,' Young said during closing arguments last month. But other judges have already contemplated the same questions the new lawsuit raises, concluding that using the foreign policy provision in the student activist cases was vague and probably violated the First Amendment. In the case involving Khalil, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court in New Jersey wrote that using the foreign policy provision to detain him was probably unconstitutional, even though that did not factor into his decisions to order Khalil's release in June. Since the Supreme Court limited federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions in June, any ruling in the case would likely apply only to the plaintiffs at Stanford. But the lawsuit aims to set a legal precedent that the organization hopes could be used more broadly. (STORY CAN END HERE. OPTIONAL MATERIAL FOLLOWS.) Fitzpatrick, the foundation lawyer, said there were narrow but conceivable situations in which the use of the foreign policy law would be appropriate, such as if pro-Kremlin Ukrainian politicians who fled the country after Russia's invasion sought refuge in the United States and continued to work to undermine Kyiv from abroad. Advertisement 'That has an arguable constitutional basis,' he said. 'What does not have an arguable constitutional basis is someone going up to a podium, whether it's at a city council meeting or a local park, at a protest, voicing an opinion that would be completely protected if you or I said it, and the secretary of state saying, 'We don't like the ideas you're spreading -- get out.' 'That's un-American,' he said. This article originally appeared in
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Stanford's student newspaper sues Trump administration over use of immigration law to target pro-Palestinian students
The Middle East Media Student life ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink Follow Stanford University's student-run newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over its decision to use part of a federal immigration law to target and deport pro-Palestinian activists, arguing the government's effort has impermissibly chilled students' First Amendment rights. The lawsuit, filed at a federal court in California, represents the latest legal challenge to two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that have been key to the State and Homeland Security Departments' so-called ideological deportation policy. In several other cases brought around the country, judges have also been asked to weigh the constitutionality of the INA provisions and the administration's policy around them. The California case was brought by the organization that publishes The Stanford Daily and two noncitizen former college students who fear their pro-Palestinian views or advocacy could put them at risk of being deported. Attorneys for the newspaper said in the lawsuit that international students on staff are turning down assignments related to the war in Gaza or 'seeking removal of their previous articles about it.' 'Since the Trump administration began targeting lawfully present noncitizens for deportation based on protected speech in March 2025, lawfully present noncitizen students working at and contributing to Stanford Daily have self-censored expression for fear of visa revocation, arrest, detention, and deportation,' attorneys from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which brought the new case, wrote in court papers. One of the INA provisions at issue gives Secretary of State Marco Rubio the authority to decide that a noncitizen is removable if he 'personally determines' that the individual's views 'would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' The other gives the secretary the power to 'at any time, in his discretion' revoke a visa. The Stanford Daily and the two unnamed former students are asking a federal judge to bar the administration from using the pair of provisions to deport them and any noncitizen members of the newspaper's staff based on their 'protected speech.' 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message. And when a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights, the Constitution prevails,' the attorneys wrote. The lawsuit comes on the heels of a weekslong bench trial in a separate case in Boston during which members of the Trump administration testified under oath about the government's targeting of noncitizen pro-Palestinian students and scholars. The trial, which concluded on July 21, highlighted how DHS began taking orders from the State Department as it went after certain professors and students to change their immigration status and work to have them deported. US District Judge William Young, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, is now deciding whether the government's 'ideological deportation policy' had the effect of unlawfully chilling the speech of certain professors. The attorneys in that case say the administration's actions toward pro-Palestinian activists on college campuses have targeted potentially hundreds of noncitizens.
