With added protections, Texas House backs 'Campus Protection Act' to regulate free speech
Free speech on college campuses is poised to face new constraints after the Texas House gave preliminary approval to Senate Bill 2972, which will limit students' and employees' permitted expression on campus. The proposal reverses 2019 protections that established common outdoor areas of a higher education campus as traditional public forums.
With an 111-27 vote, the House late Tuesday night overwhelmingly approved an amended Senate Bill 2972, dubbed the "Campus Protection Act," which included more free speech protections compared with the Senate's original version.
Donning a circular state of Texas clock to highlight the few final hours the House had to pass bills on second reading, Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican who sponsored the bill, stood behind Rep. Chris Turner to support the Democratic member from Grand Prairie in introducing an amendment to "make sure that our campuses must provide a public forum for free speech" and that nothing in the proposal would contradict the U.S. or Texas constitutions. Leach also issued an amendment clarifying that amplified sound is only prohibited "when there's an intent to intimidate others or to interfere with campus operations," university leadership or police. The chamber approved both amendments.
"I'm taking what could have been a three- or four-hour debate and it's going to be less than five minutes," Leach said as the House approached its 12th hour on the floor. "We've been working collaboratively with many of you here in the body, with our Senate counterparts, with the leadership at our university systems across the state, to guarantee the rights of students and faculty to gather peaceably on our college campuses."
Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, authored SB 2972 to tighten free speech rules on college campuses after pro-Palestinian protests erupted in universities across the country, including at several campuses in Texas, last year calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war.
More than 150 people were arrested at Texas universities in April 2024 across several pro-Palestinian protests, which organizers and demonstrators asserted were peaceful and lawful. University administrators and lawmakers, however, have accused protesters of being disruptive and antisemitic. In Austin, the Travis County attorney's office dropped all criminal trespassing charges for demonstrators who were arrested during the April 24 and April 29 protests at the University of Texas. At least five students who were arrested have sued UT over alleged violations of their First Amendment rights.
"While the world watched Columbia, Harvard and other campuses across the country taken hostage by pro-terrorist mobs last year, Texas stood firm. UT allowed protest, not anarchy," Creighton said in a statement to the American-Statesman on Saturday about the bill. "No First Amendment rights were infringed—and they never will be."
Creighton's bill removes a provision authored six years ago that established universities as traditional public forums for everyone regardless of viewpoint — a conservative priority that he co-authored. State Republicans enthusiastically backed SB 18 in 2019, which they said protected speech at a time when campuses were wary of controversial conservative voices coming to campus.
Rights advocacy groups from across the political spectrum — from the national chapter of Young Americans for Liberty to the ACLU of Texas and the local chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations — opposed the bill's potential limit on free speech.
"The context of the (SB 18) bill is impossible to extricate from the protections, but it yielded a benefit to all Texans," Caro Achar, engagement coordinator at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said in an interview before the House amendments. "What's difficult about SB 2972 is that it feels more and more that the protections that were extended for all Texans' free speech rights and protest rights were a matter of convenience and viewpoint, and not inherently because they are valued rights, because now we're seeing a bill as the political context around who is being invited to campus or who is protesting on campus has potentially shifted."
Creighton denied that SB 2972 contrasts the 2019 law, saying it builds on the measure by protecting free speech that's peaceful while maintaining "safety and order" and empowering each institution to use "the local tools needed to preserve both free expression and the educational mission."
"Both laws protect the First Amendment rights of students, faculty and staff," Creighton said. "SB 2972 ensures that speech stays free, protest stays peaceful, and chaos never takes hold."
Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, who authored SB 18 in 2019, voted for Creighton's SB 2972 despite it revoking the public forum protection her bill established. She did not respond to Statesman requests for comment on her vote, but in a 2019 news release about SB 18, she said "colleges and universities should provide the opportunity for students to hear others' points of view in a free and unrestrained manner."
Turner said on the House floor that his amendment reinstates critical protections into SB 2972, such as a requirement that institutions must have a public forum for speech. Several Democrats, including Rep. Donna Howard of Austin and Rep. Aicha Davis of Dallas, who are both on the Higher Education Subcommittee, voted for the amended version of the bill.
If the House gives the bill final passage, the Senate will have to review the changes before it is sent to the governor.
"This is how we protect student safety, defend our institutions, and safeguard freedom for generations to come," Creighton said.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas House backs limits to free speech at universities
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds
JPMorgan raised its forecast for municipal bond sales in 2025 to $560 billion as US lawmakers deliberate over President Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill in the Senate. Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-head of municipal fixed income Sylvia Yeh weighs in on what policy changes to the US tax code could mean for municipal bond investors, as well as valuation catalysts in comparison to Treasury yields (^TYX, ^TNX, ^FVX). Goldman Sachs manages several municipal bond ETFs (GMUB, GCAL, GMNY, GUMI). To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump admin is struggling to hire staff for this key official
The Trump administration is reportedly having trouble hiring aides and top advisors to work for U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to NBC News. The Republican White House has been searching for a new chief of staff and several other senior advisors for Hegseth following 'a series of missteps that have shaken confidence in his leadership,' NBC News reported. Vice President JD Vance and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles have been involved in the search for staff members. But so far, three people have already turned down potential jobs, according to the report. To further complicate matters, the White House has also rejected some individuals that Hegseth wants to hire, while Hegseth has rejected some of the White House's candidates, according to NBC News. Last April, members of Hegseth's staff were either put on leave or had left their positions at the Pentagon. Hegseth placed two senior aides on leave in April amid an investigation into a leak of sensitive information from the Pentagon, according to USA Today. It was also revealed in April that Hegseth's Chief of Staff, Joe Kasper, would leave his position, according to Politico. John Ullyot, a former spokesperson for the Pentagon under Hegseth, wrote in an April Politico op-ed that his former boss is leading a department that is in disarray. 'It's been a month of total chaos at the Pentagon,' Ullyot wrote. 'From leaks of sensitive operational plans to mass firings, the dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president — who deserves better from his senior leadership." The New York Times also reported in April that Hegseth created a group chat on Signal with his wife and brother. There, he shared details of a military strike in March against Yemen's Houthi militants, according to the Times. It was previously reported that the details of the strike were shared in a separate Signal chat group featuring Hegseth, other top Trump officials and the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. The stories of the Signal chats were referred to as 'SignalGate.' The Pentagon's watchdog is investigating whether any of Hegseth's aides were asked to delete messages from Signal that may have shared sensitive military information with the editor-in-chief, according to The Associated Press. U.S. House committee demands Harvard send them hiring policies for review ICE detains most-followed TikTok star amid Trump immigration crackdown Mass. doctor ousted by RFK Jr. as part of purge to CDC vaccine advisory committee Williams College stops accepting federal grants, opposing new policy What Gov. Newsom said after an Ala. senator called LA 'a third world country' Read the original article on MassLive.


The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Press groups warn federal agents may have violated journalists' First Amendment rights in LA
A handful of First Amendment advocacy groups are raising concerns about the treatment of journalists covering the ongoing protests in Los Angeles over federal immigration enforcement in the area by police. In a letter dated Tuesday and sent to the Department of Homeland Security, the First Amendment Coalition, Freedom of the Press Foundation and National Press Club wrote 'to express alarm that federal officers may have violated the First Amendment rights of journalists covering recent protests and unrest related to immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area.' 'A number of reports suggest that federal officers have indiscriminately used force or deployedmunitions such as tear gas or pepper balls that caused significant injuries to journalists,' the groups wrote in their letter. 'In some cases, federal officers appear to have deliberately targeted journalists who were doing nothing more than their job covering the news.' Many of the demonstrations in Los Angeles have turned violent, with protestors setting cars on fire and getting into tense confrontations with police. President Trump has called in National Guard troops to quell the violence and clashed with the state's governor over the crisis. 'To the extent that officers may lawfully use force against certain individuals who commit illegal acts, the force must be limited to responding to the conduct of those individuals, not used indiscriminately,' the groups wrote to DHS. 'To avoid any further First Amendment violations, please immediately ensure that any federal officers or personnel, or anyone acting under their direction and control, refrain from any unlawful, indiscriminate, and excessive use of force against members of the press and public who are merely covering events of public concern in the Los Angeles area.' The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.