Speech First, Inc. v. Whitten (No. 24-361)
Summary
This document is Justice Thomas's dissent from the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Speech First, Inc. v. Whitten. The case concerns a challenge to Indiana University's (IU) bias response team and its policies regarding the reporting and handling of 'bias incidents.' Justice Thomas argues that the Court should have granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether such bias response policies objectively chill student speech, thus affecting Article III standing.
Expected Effects
The denial of certiorari means the circuit split remains unresolved. Universities in different circuits will continue to operate under different standards regarding the regulation of student speech and the potential for chilling effects from bias response teams. This could lead to a patchwork of First Amendment rights for students across the country.
Potential Benefits 2/5
- Clarification of First Amendment rights on college campuses.
- Resolution of the circuit split, providing consistent legal standards.
- Protection of free speech for students with unpopular views.
- Prevention of potential self-censorship due to fear of bias incident reports.
- Reinforcement of the principle that universities should foster open debate and intellectual discourse.
Potential Disadvantages
- The circuit split remains, leading to inconsistent application of First Amendment rights.
- Universities may continue to implement policies that chill student speech.
- Students may self-censor their views, limiting open discussion.
- The lack of clarity may lead to further litigation and uncertainty.
- The potential for bias response teams to be used to suppress unpopular opinions remains.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment 2/5
The central issue concerns the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Justice Thomas argues that the bias response policies, by potentially chilling speech, may violate this right. The dissent references the principle that plaintiffs can establish standing based on the deterrent effect of regulations that fall short of direct prohibitions, citing Laird v. Tatum. The debate revolves around whether the IU policy, and similar policies, constitute an infringement on free speech rights, even without formal disciplinary action.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to citizens. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).