We need to test this.
We need to test this.
Source (amgreatness.com)
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the law’s salary-for-speech provision violates the First Amendment, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The decision came in response to two lawsuits brought by professors, students, and a student group who claim the law is unconstitutional censorship and applies specifically to Florida’s public colleges and universities.
Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the majority:
Florida’s salary-for-speech rule is a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the State’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry — classrooms where students are trusted to puzzle through ideas that are good and bad, easy and hard, ideally getting ever closer to the truth.
Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, dissented, contending that Florida has interest in regulating state-sponsored instruction.
Lagoa wrote:
To be clear, the First Amendment protects all viewpoints in the public square, whether they are conventional or uncontroversial. But it does not compel all viewpoints to be worthy of state-sponsored endorsement.
The split ruling leaves open the opportunity for Florida to pursue a rehearing or appeal to the Supreme Court.
[Source](https://amgreatness.com/2026/07/10/federal-court-blocks-florida-ban-on-critical-race-theory-indoctrination-in-colleges/)
>
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the law’s salary-for-speech provision violates the First Amendment, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
>
The decision came in response to two lawsuits brought by professors, students, and a student group who claim the law is unconstitutional censorship and applies specifically to Florida’s public colleges and universities.
>
Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the majority:
>>
Florida’s salary-for-speech rule is a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the State’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry — classrooms where students are trusted to puzzle through ideas that are good and bad, easy and hard, ideally getting ever closer to the truth.
>
Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, dissented, contending that Florida has interest in regulating state-sponsored instruction.
>
Lagoa wrote:
>>
To be clear, the First Amendment protects all viewpoints in the public square, whether they are conventional or uncontroversial. But it does not compel all viewpoints to be worthy of state-sponsored endorsement.
-----------------------------------------
>
The split ruling leaves open the opportunity for Florida to pursue a rehearing or appeal to the Supreme Court.
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (2).