Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case Challenging Constitutionality of College Bias Response Teams
The United States Supreme Court has declined to take up a case that would have examined the constitutionality of so-called “bias response teams” at public universities — a decision that leaves unresolved a controversial issue at the intersection of free speech and campus regulation.
On Monday, the Court rejected a petition from Speech First, a nonprofit organization that advocates for students’ First Amendment rights on college campuses. The group had filed a lawsuit challenging Indiana University’s use of bias response teams, arguing that the practice has a chilling effect on student expression and infringes on constitutionally protected speech.
Bias response teams are administrative units at many colleges and universities that allow students, faculty, or staff to report incidents of perceived bias or offensive speech, often through anonymous submissions. While these teams typically claim they are focused on education and outreach rather than punishment, critics argue that their presence can lead to indirect censorship — particularly of unpopular or controversial viewpoints.
In its lawsuit, Speech First alleged that Indiana University’s bias response protocols create a climate of fear and self-censorship among students. According to the group, even the potential for investigation or administrative action is enough to dissuade students from expressing viewpoints that might be deemed offensive or politically incorrect by their peers or school officials.
The organization argued that such practices amount to a violation of the First Amendment, which protects individuals from government efforts to suppress speech. They hoped the Indiana case would serve as a national test to clarify whether such teams are legally permissible at public institutions.
Although the Supreme Court did not provide a reason for declining to hear the case — a common practice — two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, issued a strong dissent, indicating their belief that the Court should have addressed the issue.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, expressed concern that the legal uncertainty surrounding bias response teams is leading to inconsistent rulings across the country. “A student’s ability to challenge these speech-restrictive policies should not depend on geography,” the dissent stated, warning that students at public universities in different parts of the country may enjoy vastly different levels of First Amendment protection.
The dissenting justices noted that bias response teams are now commonplace at colleges and universities nationwide, with many institutions using them as part of broader diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. They argued that the growing influence of such teams deserves scrutiny from the nation’s highest court, especially as campuses continue to grapple with tensions between free expression and efforts to promote inclusive environments.
For now, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means that the lower court ruling — which upheld Indiana University’s policies — will stand. The decision is a setback for free speech advocates, who fear that schools may use bias response mechanisms as a way to regulate or discourage dissenting viewpoints without imposing formal speech codes, which are more likely to face legal challenges.
The debate over bias response teams is likely to continue, especially as similar lawsuits are pending in other jurisdictions. As college campuses remain a hotbed for political, social, and cultural debate, the question of how to balance student expression with campus inclusivity remains unresolved.
