Justices Thomas And Alito Dissent As SCOTUS Passes On Campus Free Speech Case

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a free speech challenge to university “bias response teams” that conservatives argue silence their viewpoints on campus.

Two of the nine justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, indicated they would have granted a hearing on the free speech lawsuit brought by the Indiana University students, reported The Associated Press.

“I would grant the petition. It raises an important question affecting universities nationwide; Speech First estimates that over 450 universities have similar bias-reporting schemes.” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. Justice Alito agreed with Thomas, arguing that the case should be on the court’s docket.

The Indiana University students, represented by the free speech advocacy group Speech First, argue that the bias-response team targets right-leaning political speech by enabling anonymous reports of what are deemed “offensive” remarks.

Speech First specifically points to threats of discipline against conservatives who held contrary viewpoints on “gender identity, immigration, affirmative action, and the Israel-Palestine conflict,” suing Indiana University for forcing students to self-censor out of fear of retribution by these bias response teams.

University administrators maintain that the program is meant to provide education and support, not punishment.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas continues: “Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student’s right to challenge such programs.”

“I have serious concerns that bias response policies, such as Virginia Tech’s, objectively chill students’ speech,” Thomas further expressed, per Courthouse News.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant a hearing does not imply agreement or disagreement with the lower courts, only indicating that fewer than four justices were interested in taking up the case for whatever reason, as the Court declined to provide an explanation for declining Speech First’s case on Monday.

Although the Court’s action leaves Indiana University’s program intact, the public statements from two justices suggest the matter of bias-response teams could reappear on the Court’s docket in a future case, given the right circumstances.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a free speech challenge to university “bias response teams” that conservatives argue silence their viewpoints on campus.

Two of the nine justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, indicated they would have granted a hearing on the free speech lawsuit brought by the Indiana University students, reported The Associated Press.

“I would grant the petition. It raises an important question affecting universities nationwide; Speech First estimates that over 450 universities have similar bias-reporting schemes.” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. Justice Alito agreed with Thomas, arguing that the case should be on the court’s docket.

The Indiana University students, represented by the free speech advocacy group Speech First, argue that the bias-response team targets right-leaning political speech by enabling anonymous reports of what are deemed “offensive” remarks.

Speech First specifically points to threats of discipline against conservatives who held contrary viewpoints on “gender identity, immigration, affirmative action, and the Israel-Palestine conflict,” suing Indiana University for forcing students to self-censor out of fear of retribution by these bias response teams.

University administrators maintain that the program is meant to provide education and support, not punishment.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas continues: “Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student’s right to challenge such programs.”

“I have serious concerns that bias response policies, such as Virginia Tech’s, objectively chill students’ speech,” Thomas further expressed, per Courthouse News.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant a hearing does not imply agreement or disagreement with the lower courts, only indicating that fewer than four justices were interested in taking up the case for whatever reason, as the Court declined to provide an explanation for declining Speech First’s case on Monday.

Although the Court’s action leaves Indiana University’s program intact, the public statements from two justices suggest the matter of bias-response teams could reappear on the Court’s docket in a future case, given the right circumstances.