Texas College Campus Protest Law Faces First Amendment Challenge in 5th Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard arguments on October 6, 2026, over Senate Bill 2972, a Texas law requiring public colleges to restrict expressive activity from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. and during the final weeks of a semester. State lawyers defended the statute while student plaintiffs argued it violates the First Amendment, leaving the fate of a lower court injunction hanging in the balance.

Appeals Court Weighs Constitutionality of Campus Speech Restrictions

The legal showdown centers on Senate Bill 2972, dubbed the Campus Protection Act, which took effect on September 1, 2025. Texas lawmakers passed the measure following a wave of pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations in 2024. Protests at Columbia University in April 2024 preceded student walkouts at the University of Texas at Austin, where then-President Jay Hartzell deployed state troopers to clear demonstrators. State Sen. Brandon Creighton authored the subsequent legislation, asserting on social media that the First Amendment does not protect violence or harassment.

Assistant Solicitor General Daniel Ortner argued before the 5th Circuit that Senate Bill 2972 does not directly regulate students. Instead, Ortner told the court that the statute mandates public colleges to adopt their own individual speech policies. He also contended that the student plaintiffs sued the wrong officials, maintaining that campus deans rather than University of Texas System administrators hold responsibility for enforcing student policies.

When pressed by a judge on whether a campus policy banning all overnight expressive activity would be unconstitutional on its face, Ortner acknowledged that such a rule would prove difficult to defend. However, he maintained that the state interprets the statute as directing universities to balance free speech rights against the need to prevent disruptions to studying, sleeping, and examinations.

Students Argue Broad Restrictions Stifle Legitimate Expression

Representing the student plaintiffs, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) senior attorney Adam Steinbaugh pushed back against the state’s procedural distinctions. Steinbaugh argued that the statutory language compels colleges to adopt the restrictions using mandatory terms, noting that the University of Texas at Dallas adopted the state-mandated rules nearly word for word.

Students and student groups from UT-Austin and UT-Dallas filed the original lawsuit challenging the broad sweep of the legislation. Legal counsel for the students pointed out that the overnight and finals-week restrictions could inadvertently criminalize non-protest activities. In court briefs, FIRE lawyers warned that the legislation could theoretically penalize a student journalist filing a dorm-room report after 10:30 p.m., a Christian group engaging in quiet worship with an invited guest, or a music student performing in an authorized campus space.

“The Texas Legislature cannot send the First Amendment to bed at 10 p.m.,” FIRE lawyers wrote in a legal brief.

The litigation also hinges on divergent interpretations of commercial speech exemptions within the statute. Student attorneys argue that the law favors commercial transactions—such as selling merchandise or soliciting donations—over expressive conduct. State lawyers countered that commercial speech operates under separate regulatory frameworks and that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate viewpoint discrimination.

Federal Judge Previously Blocked Enforcement of Challenged Provisions

District Judge David Alan Ezra based in Austin. Judge Ezra sided with the student plaintiffs, issuing a temporary injunction that blocked University of Texas System officials from enforcing the contested provisions. The federal judge determined that the student groups demonstrated a high likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims and that the statutory restrictions were unconstitutionally broad.

State lawyers subsequently appealed that injunction to the 5th Circuit, asking the higher court to lift the block while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds. Meanwhile, student plaintiffs maintain that the preliminary injunction must remain intact to protect campus free expression.

The appeals court panel took the arguments under submission. A formal ruling on whether to overturn or uphold Judge Ezra’s preliminary injunction is expected in the coming weeks.