In a significant decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider the constitutionality of college bias response teams, leaving the issue unresolved for the time being. The case, brought by Speech First, a group dedicated to protecting students’ First Amendment rights, sought to challenge the bias response teams at Indiana University, arguing that these programs violated students’ freedom of speech. The Court’s refusal to take up the case leaves the issue of whether students can challenge such programs in the hands of lower courts, and it could lead to a “patchwork” of First Amendment rights across the country, as noted by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who dissented.
Bias response teams are groups at colleges and universities designed to address complaints about biased or discriminatory behavior. These teams typically operate by allowing students or faculty to report incidents of bias anonymously, and they may investigate or take action against those accused of bias. Critics, however, argue that these programs can lead to censorship and punish students for speech that might be offensive but still constitutionally protected.
Speech First, the organization behind the lawsuit, has been active in challenging such programs across the country. The group argued that these bias response teams, which can send students to disciplinary hearings, create a chilling effect on free speech, stifling open expression on campus. Their petition for the Supreme Court to take up the case was based on the contention that the existing “circuit split”—where different federal courts have ruled differently on whether such programs violate the First Amendment—needed resolution at the highest level.
Justice Thomas, in his dissent, expressed concerns that the Court’s refusal to intervene would lead to inconsistent protections for free speech, depending on where students attended school. He wrote that the decision left students vulnerable to a “patchwork” of rules regarding the ability to challenge the policies of bias response teams. This, according to Thomas, meant that some students’ constitutional rights could be infringed upon while others’ might be protected, depending on the region in which they lived.
Thomas’s dissent reflects broader concerns from conservatives that university bias response programs could be used to suppress speech. These programs are seen by some as tools for silencing viewpoints that do not align with prevailing campus ideologies, especially when it comes to politically sensitive topics.
