Thomas and Alito Dissent as Campus Free Speech Debate Deepens

While the majority of justices opted not to review the case, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented from the Court’s decision. Both expressed concern that the denial leaves unresolved what they view as a pressing constitutional question — how far universities may go in regulating student speech under the guise of maintaining a respectful campus climate.
Justice Thomas argued that the Court’s silence effectively allows a “patchwork of First Amendment protections” to persist across the country, where some appellate courts uphold bias response teams and others scrutinize them more closely. Alito echoed that sentiment, emphasizing that uncertainty about permissible boundaries of campus speech risks further confusion and inconsistency in how universities manage expression.
The challenge from Speech First had been closely watched by legal scholars, civil liberties groups, and university administrators alike. The organization contended that Indiana University’s bias response system functioned as a form of indirect censorship, discouraging students from engaging in political or socially charged conversations. Lower courts, however, determined that the program did not constitute a direct restriction on speech, as participation was largely voluntary and did not always lead to formal disciplinary measures.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means those rulings will stand, at least for now. But the dissenting justices’ warnings underscore a continuing ideological divide over how the First Amendment applies within educational settings.
As universities balance inclusivity with open discourse, the question remains unsettled: where should the line be drawn between protecting students from harm and preserving their right to speak freely? Until the Court decides to take up the issue, the answers will continue to differ from one campus — and one courtroom — to another.