Notes
- In Academic Freedom and the First Amendment, Rachel Levinson, Senior Counsel to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), discusses the difficulties in distinguishing between “academic freedom” and “free speech rights under the First Amendment,” although they are distinct legal concepts.
- In its Memorandum and Order, President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-11048 (D. Mass. 2025), the federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against an Executive Order restricting international student enrollment and freezing federal funding for Harvard. The court stated “free speech, particularly in the academic arena, must be zealously defended and not taken for granted.”
- In the President and Fellows of Harvard College case, nine organizations across the political spectrum filed an amicus brief, Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties et al., supporting Harvard’s motion for summary judgment. Their main argument was that the First Amendment principle of academic freedom prohibits the government from imposing ideological admissions, hiring, and programmatic requirements on colleges and universities.
- In its Opinion and Order in Rona v. Trump, No. 25-cv-03114 (S.D.N.Y. 2025), the federal court granted a request by two law professors, one a law clinic director, for a permanent injunction against Executive Order No. 14, imposing sanctions for assisting, or providing support to, the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court described Rona’s and Davis’s ICC-related work to include submitting amicus briefs in support of positions taken by the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) and providing direct support to the OTP in the form of drafting statements, training and advising. In granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order, the court found that “the 2025 Order regulates protected speech based on its content. It is thus ‘presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that [it is] narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests,” and the government did not do so.
- In its Memorandum Opinion in Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, et al., No. 25-cv-01107 (D.D.C.), the federal court granted declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of an Executive Order (EO) against the law firm of Susman Godfrey (Susman). Instead of negotiating a settlement, as some other law firms did, Susman filed a complaint seeking relief from the EO. In its complaint, Susman alleged several violations, including the First Amendment violations of protected expression, viewpoint discrimination, interfering with the firm’s right to petition the government, and interfering with the firm’s right of free association.
- More information about Bedi vs. U.S House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce, No. 25-cv-03837 (N.D. Ill.) is available at the Center for Constitutional Rights, whose lawyers represented Bedi.
- In American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President et al., No. 25-cv-01888 (D.C.), the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief alleged that the President and federal departments and agencies have conducted a “Law Firm Intimidation Policy [that] violates the First Amendment prohibition on government coercion to suppress disfavored speech, and on threatening retaliation for engaging in speech the government disfavors.” The ABA explained: “ABA members engage in First Amendment-protected conduct through their advocacy, advice to clients, and petitioning of courts, including by representing clients in litigation against the federal government; performing pro bono work in matters adverse to the current Administration; representing clients in litigation related to social and political issues disfavored by the current Administration; and filing amicus briefs on behalf of clients in matters adverse to the current Administration. “