Why an Appeals Court Blocked a Dangerous Censorship Law in Florida’s Universities

HOUSTON – A group of professors filed suit Monday night challenging the Texas A&M University System’s new censorship policy that prohibits faculty from discussing certain topics and viewpoints related to race, sexual orientation, and gender. “My ethics course — the only one of its kind available to graduate students — was canceled for noncompliance with a draconian censorship policy,” said Leonard Bright (he/him), lead plaintiff, professor of Public Service and Administration, and president of the Texas A&M College Station chapter of the AAUP. “This policy has impacted my ability to do my job, my students’ ability to learn, and my colleagues’ ability to teach without fear of reprisal. The chilling effect of this policy is vast and immeasurable, and it poisons the very soul of what a university should be: a place where ideas are free to roam, and debate is uninhibited by the political winds.” The policy, which was implemented in late 2025 and requires extensive, bureaucratic syllabi review, has resulted in prohibitions on everything from the Oscar-winning film “Moonlight” to Plato’s writings on gender. The faculty impacted by this policy work throughout the Texas A&M System, which includes 12 universities, and across departments, from the Bush School of Government and Public Service to the English department. “The First Amendment plainly prohibits this egregious attack on academic freedom at a public university,” said Emerson Sykes (he/him), senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “This broad policy and the university’s opaque enforcement process makes it impossible to teach or to learn freely and endangers course content about everything from the history of slavery to Shakespeare to the hard sciences. Universities are sites of inquiry, debate, and discovery — banning entire categories of ideas is a betrayal of both their mission and the First Amendment.” The censorship policy was implemented in November 2025 amid a sustained campaign to limit speech on certain topics in the college classroom. As a result of the policy change, numerous classes have been cancelled or forced to remove content. The women’s and gender studies program has been shuttered altogether because the program could not be reconciled with the new censorship policy. “This policy directly harms Black, Brown, LGBTQIA+, and all other Texans who have historically been discriminated against by subjecting discussion of their rights, identities, and indeed very existence to heavy-handed censorship.” said Chloe Kempf (she/her), staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “What’s more, it undermines all Texans’ First Amendment rights. If public officials can abuse their power to ban these topics and perspectives today, there’s nothing stopping them from targeting other subjects and points of view, including your own, down the line.” Cancelled courses include Religions of the World; Introduction to Race and Ethnicity; Ethics in Public Policy; and a course focused on LGBTQ+ literature. Professors have been forced to edit their syllabi to comply with the policy, removing works like Plato’s “Myth of Androgyne;” Kevin Kruse’s “White Flight;” and even the Academy Award-winning film “Moonlight.” One history professor was allowed to teach Phyllis Schlafly’s campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment, but not about how the Fourteenth Amendment expanded to protect women and LGBTQ+ people. “By embarking on a campaign of censorship, Texas A&M has abdicated its responsibility to support students’ right to learn and faculty’s right to teach,” said Todd Wolfson (he/him), president of the AAUP. “A university that censors Plato — as well as other significant texts — abandons its obligation to truth, free inquiry, and the public trust.” The suit was filed on behalf of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Professors Leonard Bright, Vanita Reddy, Landon Sadler, and Aaron George in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint argues that the censorship policy governing Texas A&M is unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment by discriminating against certain viewpoints. “We’re proud to represent these professors challenging a censorship policy that betrays Texas A&M’s established legacy as an institution that supports free and open inquiry,” said Jamie A. Aycock (he/him), attorney at Yetter Coleman LLP. “At stake in this lawsuit is the bedrock First Amendment principle that America is strengthened by and depends upon open public debate, even on the most controversial topics. Nowhere is this more important than in our public academic institutions, which are charged with developing and teaching our future leaders to think critically and broadly about pressing issues affecting society.” You can read the complaint here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Four free speech groups filed a joint comment with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asking it to stop retaliating against ABC for the network’s editorial choices. Earlier this spring, the FCC called for 8 Disney-owned ABC stations throughout the country to undergo license renewal, all years earlier than required, in apparent retaliation for Jimmy Kimmel’s jokes about the Trump administration. The comment argues that the early license renewal is unconstitutional jawboning: “When the chairman of a government entity with complete power over the stations’ very existence wields that power to jawbone disfavored speakers, it cuts against the very core of what the First Amendment protects. If the government can keep disfavored media off the air, it can deprive the entire American public of a free media landscape – a landscape that is an essential pillar of not just our Constitution, but also our liberty and democracy.” “The FCC’s treatment of ABC is a clear and alarming abuse of power,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. “The administration cannot pressure networks to censor reporters, comedians, and critics simply because it doesn’t like what they have to say. That goes against the very core of the First Amendment and poses an existential threat to our democracy. The FCC must drop this proceeding now.” Tens of thousands of people have flooded the public comment docket in defense of ABC, Jimmy Kimmel, and the First Amendment. By law, the commission is required to review all comments that are posted during the public comment period. “Government officials cannot use their regulatory authority to coerce broadcasters into censoring or distorting protected speech. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here,” said Ryan Morgan, policy fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “These proceedings turn the FCC’s licensing authority into a tool for dictating which voices and viewpoints broadcasters carry. That’s precisely the kind of government coercion the First Amendment forbids.” Last year, the FCC pressured ABC to take Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air after President Trump criticized the show and Kimmel’s jokes about his administration. After an intense public pressure campaign, including an open letter signed by nearly 500 high-profile artists and over 40,000 people, the show was returned to air. “This is yet another example of the FCC crusade to bludgeon broadcasters into submission,” said Erika Sanders, counsel at the National Coalition Against Censorship. “There is zero doubt that Chairman Carr believes the mandate of the FCC is to serve as the chief enforcer of the President’s propaganda — a belief that is as wrong as it is dangerous to the freedom of expression.” The comment was submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), the Future of Free Speech, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Earlier this week, the ACLU, NCAC, and 20 other advocacy organizations sent a letter to Disney thanking them for defending the First Amendment and encouraging them to continue fighting the FCC’s unconstitutional attacks. “When a license can be threatened over a joke or a newsroom’s editorial judgment, broadcasters stop waiting to be censored and start self censoring,” said Ashkhen Kazaryan, senior legal fellow at The Future of Free Speech. That is the chilling effect the First Amendment exists to prevent.”

RICHMOND, Va. – The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to re-detain Georgetown scholar Dr. Badar Khan Suri and affirmed a lower court order that required the government to release him on bail as his case proceeded. The court also rejected the government’s request to move the case from Virginia to Texas. “[In] our view,” the court wrote, “denying judicial review of detention claims like Suri’s misreads Congress’ statutes and undermines the protections guaranteed all persons on American soil by the writ of habeas corpus.” The court later expanded: “[An] unbroken line of caselaw also accords with common sense: if a noncitizen is challenging their detention pending removal, then waiting for their removal proceedings does them no good. They have already been detained, allegedly in violation of the Constitution. This ‘absurd’ reading of the INA would make such detention claims ‘effectively unreviewable,’ and the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to embrace it.” In March 2025, ICE arrested and detained Dr. Suri, a lawful visa holder from India whose wife is a U.S. citizen, outside his Virginia home in retaliation for his associations and speech in support of Palestinian rights. Dr. Suri was detained for nearly six weeks over a thousand miles away from his wife and children at an infamous private detention center in Texas known for its human rights abuses. A federal judge ordered his release from detention in May 2025 while his case continued in federal court. “Today reaffirms my faith that an independent judiciary remains the truest guardian of liberty, due process, and the rule of law. I am profoundly grateful to the judges who upheld these constitutional principles and gave my case the careful, deliberate consideration it deserved,” said Dr. Badar Khan Suri. “I remain, as ever, committed to the pursuit of justice through lawful and peaceful means. We should remember that a democracy without an accessible writ of habeas corpus is a democracy in name only; as the honorable court so aptly observed, the scope of habeas corpus ‘must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.’ I am proud of those who fought for me, and I am proud of every moment of life. Be courageous and stand for justice. Free Palestine.” On appeal, the Trump administration argued that federal district courts don’t have the authority to review the constitutionality of Dr. Suri’s detention until the Department of Justice-controlled immigration process, which can take months or even years, is completed. The administration also argued that because it quickly swept Dr. Suri out of Virginia without notice to his family or lawyers, the Virginia court does not have jurisdiction to hear his petition, and that it should be handled by a court in Texas, where it chose to take him. Today, a panel of judges from the Fourth Circuit rejected both arguments 2-1, finding that federal courts must be able to review constitutional claims stemming from immigration detention, and that his case should stay in Virginia. “We are elated that Dr. Suri will remain free with his family and we are grateful that the court has seen through the government's brazen attempts to silence pro-Palestine speech,” said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The federal government cannot do an end run around the First Amendment by locking people up for their speech and denying them their day in court. Immigration laws cannot be abused to silence dissent, and we are grateful that today, justice prevailed.” This ruling is the third opinion from a federal court of appeals addressing the question of whether the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars immediate federal court review of a noncitizen’s claim of unlawful detention in retaliation for their speech. In January, the Third Circuit ruled against Mahmoud Khalil, holding that the INA does bar such claims. And just two days ago, the Second Circuit ruled against Mohsen Mahdawi, agreeing with the Third Circuit’s analysis. Addressing the Khalil v. Trump decision, the Fourth Circuit was clear: “We disagree.” “We are gratified that the court recognized the basic principle that the government cannot escape judicial review of their patently unconstitutional actions — here, arresting Dr. Khan Suri, transferring him far away from his family and community, and detaining and attempting to deport him for nothing more than his associations and constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights,” said Astha Sharma Pokharel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Similar to the cases of Mr. Khalil, Mr. Mahdawi, and other students, Dr. Suri was arrested in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights. He was additionally targeted because of his U.S. citizen wife’s speech, her Palestinian origins, and her familial ties. On social media, Dr. Suri criticized U.S. support of Israel’s assault on Gaza, motivated by the time he spent volunteering in Gaza and fear for his wife’s family members who still lived there with no way to flee during the war. The administration has falsely argued that Dr. Suri’s presence in the United States “compromised a compelling foreign policy interest” and therefore, under a rarely used section of the INA, it had the right to deport him. Dr. Suri’s immigration court proceedings remain ongoing. “ICE abducted Dr. Khan Suri from his home in Virginia before moving him among five different ICE facilities across three states in a shameless attempt to find a court that would be friendlier to his unlawful detention,” said ACLU-VA Legal Director Eden Heilman. “We are elated that the Fourth Circuit saw through the Trump administration’s blatant attempt to bend the law to their will and rejected their bid to re-detain our client thousands of miles away from his family in Virginia. The First Amendment protects all of us — regardless of citizenship — and we will continue to fight for his constitutional rights.” Dr. Suri is represented in his federal lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Van Der Hout LLP. The opinion can be read here.

NEW YORK – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a ruling that determined federal courts have jurisdiction when immigration enforcement detains noncitizens in retaliation for their protected speech. The Second Circuit held that the district court lacked the authority to release Columbia University graduate student Mohsen Mahdawi on bail in April 2025 after he was detained at his citizenship interview and held for over two weeks in retaliation for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. The decision does not go into effect immediately and the government has no lawful basis to redetain or deport Mr. Mahdawi as the appeals process proceeds. “The government is claiming the unprecedented power to detain people for months or even years on end to censor their speech, with no ability to challenge their detention in court. This is as absurd as it is dangerous,” said Michael Tan, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued on behalf of Mr. Mahdawi last year. “We will continue to fight for our client and for his right to prompt judicial review.” Earlier this year, immigration judge Nina Froes dismissed the deportation case against Mr. Mahdawi on the grounds that the government failed to authenticate a memo purportedly from Marco Rubio that declared him deportable under the “foreign policy ground” of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Froes was subsequently fired from her position as part of the Trump administration’s larger efforts to use the immigration court system to accelerate deportations. In April, after the government appealed that decision, the DOJ-controlled Board of Immigration Appeals held that Mr. Mahdawi was removable and remanded proceedings to a new immigration judge, who issued an order of removal last month. Mr. Mahdawi’s appeal of that decision is pending. “Today’s decision is a grave setback, although I am confident justice will ultimately prevail,” said Mohsen Mahdawi, who has been a lawful permanent resident for more than a decade. “It reflects a dangerous failure under political pressure, one that risks turning the federal courts into instruments of politics rather than guardians of constitutional freedom. By weakening the First Amendment and creating different tiers of rights for citizens and non-citizens, this ruling hands the government a dangerous power: the power to intimidate, censor, and punish dissent without meaningful restraint. But I still have faith that the full court will correct the legal error and restore the constitutional principles that protect all people equally. This struggle continues for Palestine, for dignity and equality everywhere, and for the democratic promise of freedom that must belong to us all; until Palestine is free.” “The Second Circuit's decision is incredibly dangerous, not just for Mohsen but for all other noncitizens the Trump administration has its vengeful sights upon," said Luna Droubi of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP. "Federal courts must have the power to step in when the government exploits our country’s immigration system to imprison people for their constitutionally-protected speech. If the Trump administration can target Mohsen for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights, they can do it to anyone expressing an opinion they disagree with. Despite today's disappointing ruling, we will keep fighting for justice for Mohsen and to protect the First Amendment rights of everyone in this country.” Mr. Mahdawi is represented by Cyrus Mehta and David Isaacson of Cyrus D. Mehta Partners, PLLC; Luna Droubi, Matthew Melewski, and Tala Alfoqaha of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP; Andrew Delaney of Martin Delaney & Ricci Law Group; CLEAR; the American Civil Liberties Union; and the ACLU of Vermont.