Speech First, Inc. v. Killeen, 19-2807

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Citation968 F.3d 628
Docket NumberNo. 19-2807,19-2807
Parties SPEECH FIRST, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy L. KILLEEN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decision Date28 July 2020

968 F.3d 628

SPEECH FIRST, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
Timothy L. KILLEEN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-2807

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued February 27, 2020
Decided July 28, 2020
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc September 4, 2020

John Michael Connolly, Attorney, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Ishan Bhabha, Attorney, Lauren J. Hartz, Attorney, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC, William D. Heinz, Attorney, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees

Kimberly S. Hermann, Attorney, Southeastern Legal Foundation, Roswell, GA, for Amicus Curiae Southeastern Legal Foundation

Jeffrey M. Schwab, Attorney, Liberty Justice Center, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae Liberty Justice Center

Luke N. Berg, Attorney, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Milwaukee, WI, for Amicus Curiae Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty

Erik S. Jaffe, Attorney, Schaerr Jaffe LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Independent Women's Law Center

Before BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

ST. EVE, Circuit Judge.

968 F.3d 632

Colleges and universities unquestionably benefit from the free flow of ideas, debate, and deliberation on campus. These institutions should strive to foster an environment where critical thought, and sometimes strong disagreement, can flourish. Indeed, "[f]reedom of expression and academic freedom are at the very core of the mission of colleges and universities, and limiting the expression of ideas would undermine the very learning environment that is central to higher education." Erwin Chemerinsky & Howard Gillman, Free Speech on Campus x (Yale Univ. Press 2017).

Speech First—a national advocacy organization dedicated to promoting the exercise of free speech on college campuses—alleges that three distinct policies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ("the University") threaten these ideals and impermissibly chill the speech of student members of its organization. It seeks a preliminary injunction to put a halt to these policies.

When a party seeks a preliminary injunction before the district court, the burden rests on that party to demonstrate that it has standing to pursue its claims. Speech First failed to meet that burden for two of the policies it challenges; namely, it failed to demonstrate that its members face a credible fear that they will face discipline on the basis of their speech as a result of those two policies. And for its challenge to the third policy, that claim is moot. The district court therefore correctly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, and we affirm.

I. Background

Speech First sued 29 administrators at the University on behalf of four anonymous students. These students claim that they wish to express what they describe as "political, social, and policy views that are unpopular on campus." Speech First's complaint lists examples of such viewpoints in general terms: opposition to abortion, support for President Trump, belief in traditional marriage, support for strong immigration policies, support for the "deradicalization of Islam," support for First Amendment protection of "hate speech," opposition to gun control, and support for LGBT rights.

Speech First alleges that three University policies—the responsive action of the Bias Assessment and Response Team and the Bias Incident Protocol to reports of "bias-motivated incidents" on campus, the imposition of No Contact Directives, and the prior approval rule—chill their student members’ speech, force these students to engage in self-censorship, and deter them from speaking openly about issues of public concern.

A. Bias Assessment Response Team and Bias Incident Protocol

Speech First challenges the actions of the University's Bias Assessment and Response Team ("BART"). BART "collects and responds to reports of bias-motivated incidents that occur within the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign community." In turn, BART defines "bias-motivated

968 F.3d 633

incidents" as "actions or expressions that are motivated, at least in part, by prejudice against or hostility toward a person (or group) because of the person's (or group's) actual or perceived age, disability/ability status, ethnicity, gender, gender identity/expression, national origin, race, religion/spirituality, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, etc." In addition, BART "[p]rovides opportunities for educational conversation and dialogue" and "[s]upports those impacted by bias."

BART is administratively housed within the Office for Student Conflict Resolution ("OSCR"). In addition to BART, OSCR houses two other functions: (a) voluntary alternative conflict resolution services and (b) enforcement of the Student Code. Members of BART come from various departments across the University: OSCR; the University Housing Office; the Office of Student Affairs; the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; the Student Assistance Center; the student union; and the University Police Department, which supplies a law enforcement liaison to BART.

Any member of the University community can report to BART by sending an email to the BART-specific email address or through a webform on the BART website. The webform does not require the reporter to identify himself, and the majority of BART reporters remain anonymous. One of the BART Co-Chairs enters the report into an internal database. A Co-Chair will promptly address any incidents that require a simple response. This could include, for example, a report of a swastika drawn on a bathroom door, where a Co-Chair will call the facilities department to erase it. For those incidents that do not allow for as straightforward of a resolution, BART members discuss reports at a bi-weekly meeting and determine whether to reach out to the involved students, if they are identified, to invite them to participate in a voluntary conversation. BART also devises a response plan, which could include "[e]ducational conversations," "[m]ediation, facilitated dialogue," "[e]ducational referrals," "[r]esolution agreements," or "[r]eferrals to other offices and/or programs."

If the reporting party is identified and wishes to meet, a BART staff member will discuss the report with the student and offer support. If the reporting party identifies the offender, a BART staff member will contact that person via email to schedule a voluntary meeting. Notably, the majority of students who BART contacts either do not respond or decline to meet. Students who decline suffer no consequences. If a student agrees to meet, BART staff explains to the student that her conduct drew attention and gives the student an opportunity to reflect upon her behavior and its impact on other students. BART cannot require students to change their behavior and does not have authority to issue sanctions if they decline to do so.

Justin Brown, Director of OSCR and a former Chair of BART, states in a declaration that BART keeps private all interactions with students, and interactions do not appear in students’ academic or disciplinary records. BART does, however, publish an annual report of incidents with all personally identifiable information removed from its data and descriptions. Examples of these descriptions, in their complete form, include:

• "The pillars outside of Foellinger Auditorium were chalked with the phrases, ‘Women are Worthless’ and ‘Go White Privilege.’ Facilities removed the chalking within an hour of it being reported."

• "A student reported that another student said to him, ‘I voted for Trump because I want to deport you guys. Enjoy the last few months in America.’
968 F.3d 634
A member of the team met with both of the students involved."

• "There were multiple reports (41) that an RSO posted on Facebook that they were going to hold an ‘Affirmative Action Bake Sale’ where they would charge different prices based on race and ethnicity. A member of the team met with the leadership of the RSO. All of the people that reported were contacted, and many of them met with a member of the team."

January Boten, Assistant Dean of Students at the University and a Co-Chair of BART, asserts in an affidavit that "[a]ny contact a student has with BART—whether the student reporting an incident or the student who is alleged to have engaged in the reported behavior—is entirely voluntary." Expressing the views Speech First describes in its complaint does not violate the University's Student Code. Thus, Boten explains, students "could not face discipline at the University solely as a result of expressing those opinions," although "some behavior motivated by bias may also violate the Student Code." (emphasis in original). Such behavior could include physical violence, stalking, true threats, and sexual harassment. BART has no independent disciplinary authority, and therefore the student disciplinary process, rather than BART, addresses this sort of behavior. Boten represents that reports made to BART "are not ‘referred’ from BART to the University Police, nor do the police ever investigate an incident reported to BART unless that incident independently was reported to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
126 cases
  • Greenberg v. Goodrich
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • March 24, 2022
    ...on Plaintiff's speech, but Plaintiff has also shown he will self-censor in response. Id. at 19 (quoting Speech First, Inc. v. Killeen , 968 F.3d 628, 638 (7th Cir. 2020) ).According to Plaintiff, there are only two authorities cited in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment that were not c......
  • Finch v. Treto
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • June 9, 2022
    ...injunction would cause the plaintiff against the harm to the defendant if the court were to grant it." Speech First, Inc. v. Killeen , 968 F.3d 628, 637 (7th Cir. 2020). In balancing the harms, a district court must consider the "public interest," which includes "people and institutions tha......
  • Speech First, Inc. v. Cartwright
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • May 2, 2022
    ...that gives rise to standing); Speech First, Inc. v. Schlissel , 939 F.3d 756, 764 (6th Cir. 2019) (same); Speech First, Inc. v. Killeen , 968 F.3d 628, 639 n.1 (7th Cir. 2020) (acknowledging, in campus-speech case, that there is "some degree of overlap" between the "credible threat" and "ob......
  • Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Buttigieg
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • August 12, 2021
    ...no adequate remedy at law, and that it will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is denied. Speech First, Inc. v. Killeen, 968 F.3d 628, 637 (7th Cir. 2020), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc (Sept. 4, 2020). If the moving party meets these threshold requirement......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 No. 1, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...(7.) See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000). (8.) See infra Part II.B. (9.) 968 F.3d 628, 645 (7th Cir. 2020) ("[W]hen the defendants are public officials... we place greater stock in their acts of self-correction, so long as they appea......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT