Universities Should Challenge Trump's Speech-Based Deportations of Students in Court [Updated]
A lawsuit brought by universities could potentially be much more effective than leaving individual students to fend for themselves.
A lawsuit brought by universities could potentially be much more effective than leaving individual students to fend for themselves.
"We're looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up," Rubio said in a Thursday press conference.
Conservatives are picking up the unconstitutional weapons that intolerant progressives have deployed against them.
As a federal judge, Maryanne Trump Barry said the provision is unconstitutionally vague. That's especially problematic when it is used to punish speech.
The judge ruled that Donald Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's executive orders targeting "gender ideology" can't change the fact that drag performance is expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
Plus: Sanders supports deportations, tariff tracker, Panama's Jewish enclave, and more...
Border officials reportedly barred the academic from visiting Texas after finding anti-Trump messages on his phone.
by "Eugene Volokh, Michael C. Dorf, David Cole, and 15 other scholars."
The rationale for deporting Mahmoud Khalil is chillingly vague and broad.
The government's stated justification for deporting him is so unconvincing that it must not be allowed to stand.
The Seventh Circuit so held yesterday; the case also involved other controversial statements besides the expurgated slur.
Just eight colleges had official neutrality policies before the attack. By the end of 2024, it was almost 150.
Plus: Ukraine attacks Russia with drones, Newsom's revisionist history, and more...
It's both unjust and unconstitutional.
Several months ago, Reason interviewed Mahmoud Khalil at a protest encampment. Now he’s sitting in ICE detention.
The law school's dean rejected the letter, arguing the First Amendment "guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it."
No? Then how can government refuse to hire Georgetown alumni, so long as Georgetown "teach[es] and promote[s] DEI"?
Texas A&M's Board of Regents voted to ban drag shows on the grounds that they objectify women and violate state and federal policies against promoting "gender ideology."
The department insists its directive will not suppress First Amendment rights.
Justice Thomas dissents from the Court's refusal to resolve a clear circuit split.
Combine moral zealotry with increasingly blurred lines between political speech and violence long enough, and the outcome is predictable.
Kirk Wolff set out to peacefully protest Trump's plan to take over Gaza. Then an administrator and a police officer drove by.
Conversations on campus free speech with Timothy Zick, Jennifer Ruth, and Michael Berube
A federal district court discusses how the First Amendment limits liability for "hostile environment harassment" based on "speech on matters of public concern" in universities (public or private). And the reasoning may extend to Title VII liability on workplaces as well.
The pandemic showed the weakness of the leadership class. [UPDATE: Inadvertently posted it under my byline, but it's of course Ilya Shapiro's post, as the byline now reflects. -EV]
My "lived experience" at Georgetown gave me a unique perspective on the higher-ed crisis.
"As a result of Plaintiffs' scattered pleading, any serious allegations of actionable discrimination are buried as needles within a haystack of distraction."
164 events or speakers were targeted, mostly over the Israel-Palestine conflict.
A new type of sore-loser law.
Your donations help us keep the culture of free speech alive.
the politicized class of professors is a serious political liability to any party that it supports."
The portion of college students who say it's OK to shout down campus speakers is rising, according to a new survey.
N.Y. law provides for some judicial review of private universities' actions, when a university fails to "adhere[] to its own published rules," thus rendering its "actions were arbitrary or capricious"; but that standard, the court holds, wasn't met here.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10