In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2807 SPEECH FIRST, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS L. KILLEEN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 3:19-cv-03142-CSB-EIL — Colin S. Bruce, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 2020 — DECIDED JULY 28, 2020 ____________________ Before BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Colleges and universities unques- tionably benefit from the free flow of ideas, debate, and delib- eration 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 2 No. 19-2807 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 cam- puses—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 cor- rectly 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. No. 19-2807 3 Speech First alleges that three University policies—the re- sponsive 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 Direc- tives, and the prior approval rule—chill their student mem- bers’ 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 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals