Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors of State University Systems

In 2022, Florida enacted the Individual Freedom Act (IFA), which prohibited public university professors from providing training or instruction that promoted any of eight listed viewpoints. The list essentially prohibited professors from endorsing the idea that race, color, national origin, or sex were relevant or should be relevant to any discussion of an individual’s position in society. For example, one prohibited viewpoint was that these traits should ever be used to achieve diversity, equity (i.e., fairness), or inclusion in any context. The fourth prohibited viewpoint was that “[m]embers of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.” The IFA allowed only “objective” “discussion” of these viewpoints, which meant “without endorsement.” A professor who expressed a statement violating the IFA could be disciplined or terminated. The board of governors (the board) (defendant) implemented the IFA in the state’s university system. LeRoy Pernell and other Florida public university professors (collectively, the professors) (plaintiffs) and a university student (plaintiff) sued the board and others (defendants), arguing the IFA’s restrictions violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and, due to vagueness, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The professors and the student requested a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the IFA during the lawsuit. Both parties agreed the state had authority to determine a university’s curriculum but did not have authority to compel a professor to express a specific belief. However, the board argued that, as the professors’ employer, the state had unlimited power to prevent professors from expressing any viewpoint the state rejected and that the IFA combatted racism and sexism. The court considered the preliminary-injunction request.