SEATTLE — In an analysis published in the Seattle Times, UC Davis law professor Brian Soucek writes that the Trump administration has demanded in recent months that universities take greater action to protect Jewish community members, placing federal funding at risk while reviving unresolved constitutional disputes over campus speech.
Soucek explains in The Seattle Times that universities such as Harvard and Columbia have implemented new Title VI compliance offices and adopted new policies limiting demonstrations.
According to Soucek’s analysis in The Seattle Times, the Trump administration is now demanding $1.2 billion from UCLA and requiring the university to conduct a campuswide survey assessing how comfortable students feel reporting antisemitism, along with new monitoring measures to evaluate whether UCLA is improving its overall climate and to establish new processes for reporting compliance failures. Soucek notes that private Northwestern University has already agreed to identical terms, including adherence to speech rules and surveying students about antisemitism on campus.
Soucek writes that with billions of dollars in research funding and student aid at stake, critics argue these demands are extortionate. He further emphasizes that many of the administration’s requirements may be unconstitutional under rulings issued by conservative federal appellate courts—decisions that were secured during Trump’s first term. Soucek notes that these opinions may now serve as the strongest legal tools available to liberal critics resisting the administration’s actions.
As described by Soucek, in 2018 an undisclosed group of right-wing donors launched a campus speech advocacy organization, Speech First, which quickly began challenging university policies related to harassment, bias and speech. Soucek explains that the group’s first lawsuit targeted the University of Michigan, arguing that the university’s definitions of harassment and its Bias Response Team chilled student expression.
Soucek reports that Speech First followed the same strategy in each case, suing public universities on behalf of anonymous students who claimed they avoided expressing conservative views on issues such as abortion, gun rights and immigration out of fear. He notes that although trial courts repeatedly rejected these claims, the organization used those losses to appeal directly to federal circuit courts.
According to Soucek, over five years Speech First filed cases in seven federal circuit courts and won favorable rulings in four, along with settlements in others. Soucek writes that universities later settled even in cases they had won, reportedly to avoid potential Supreme Court review.
Soucek explains that Speech First’s early success was reinforced by the Trump administration. He notes that when Speech First sued Michigan, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest asserting that campus speech was under threat and that vague policies allowed punishment based on whether speech was merely “hurtful” or “bothersome.”
Soucek writes that under Trump’s second administration, campus speech has again become a focal point of federal pressure, this time centered on antisemitism. He notes that the administration has urged universities to adopt reporting and monitoring mechanisms and broad policy commitments that critics say resemble the very systems dismantled through the Speech First cases.
As described by Soucek, those earlier rulings may now empower students to challenge the administration’s current demands. Soucek explains that courts held students may sue anonymously through advocacy organizations and do not need to wait until they are punished for their speech. He further reports that judges ruled even non-disciplinary systems, such as bias response teams, can violate the First Amendment if they create fear of investigation.
Soucek notes that courts were also skeptical of university assurances that only unprotected speech would be punished. He writes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed sworn statements from university leadership as insufficient. Soucek adds that other rulings found ambiguous policy language could deter students from expressing unpopular views, a concern now raised about universities’ implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.
Soucek writes that while critics argue the Speech First decisions unduly limit universities’ ability to address hostile campus climates through dialogue or institutional responses, the rulings remain binding law. He notes that Trump and his allies once celebrated these outcomes as victories for free expression.
As Soucek explains, the Speech First rulings have reshaped how campus speech disputes are litigated, lowering the threshold for students to challenge university policies before any punishment occurs. He suggests that as universities respond to renewed federal pressure over antisemitism and campus protest, these precedents may constrain how far institutions can go in adopting monitoring systems, broad speech restrictions or vague policy language.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
