Supreme Court Likely to Decide Academic Freedom Cases

Latest News

Academic Freedom as a Constitutional Right

4.22.2026

By Seth F. Gilbertson

April 22, 2026

---

• News Center
• Academic Freedom as a Constitutional Right

For more than half a century, courts, universities and scholars have invoked academic freedom as both a constitutional doctrine and a defining institutional value. Yet despite this illusive importance, there is no stable or widely accepted legal framework governing the scope, limits and enforceability of academic freedom in the context of modern higher education. [1]

Today, that framework faces renewed pressure as government actors seek greater control over curriculum, research, governance and institutional priorities. This article examines how the struggle to protect academic freedom will almost inevitably end up in the Supreme Court, which may have to confront fundamental questions about the role of universities in democratic society and the extent to which academic freedom remains a meaningful constitutional guarantee under the First Amendment.

Recent legislative initiatives, institutional policies and political interventions aimed at teaching, research, admissions, and governance have thrust academic freedom into the national spotlight as courts across the country are now adjudicating challenges to these measures, placing both individual and institutional academic freedom under renewed scrutiny. Critics increasingly see this moment as one of sustained pressure, and in some contexts, a direct attack on the traditional autonomy of colleges and universities.

The modern legal doctrine of academic freedom can be seen emerging from a trilogy of Supreme Court cases. First, the concept of a First Amendment protected right failed to find support in Adler v. Board of Education. [2] That changed a few years later with Sweezy v. New Hampshire. [3] Then, the court finally enunciated full support in Keyishian v. Board of Regents. [4] Subsequently, the law of academic freedom has developed into interrelated concepts that continue to structure modern disputes: (i) the customary freedoms of the university; (ii) the regulation of faculty speech [5] and (iii) the distinction between public and private institutions. The core principles underpinning these concepts are being tested by the contemporary legal and political environment. These tests suggest an increasing likelihood that the Supreme Court will revisit Keyishian ’s core holding in the near future.

Origins: Adler, Sweezy, and the Emergence of Constitutional Academic Freedom

The modern legal doctrine of academic freedom largely emerged from the constitutional struggles of the Cold War era. In Adler v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld New York’s Feinberg Law, which excluded so-called “subversives,” including teachers and university faculty, from public employment. However, the 6-3 decision in 1952 provoked powerful dissents by Justices Black, Douglas and Frankfurter, warning that ideological screening threatened the vitality of the educational system and the democratic process itself. (“Where suspicion fills the air and holds scholars in line for fear of their jobs, there can be no exercise of the free intellect.” [6])

That warning soon took jurisprudential form. Just five years later, in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, [7] the court confronted a state investigation into a university guest lecturer’s classroom content and political associations. Writing for a four-member plurality, a newly minted Chief Justice Earl Warren took up the argument that freedom in higher education is essential to a democratic society. Perhaps more enduring, however, was (former Harvard professor) Justice Felix Frankfurter’s concurrence, which articulated “the four essential freedoms” of a university: “who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.” [8]

Justice Frankfurter’s formulation captured both the institutional and individual dimensions of academic freedom. It recognized that universities require broad autonomy to fulfill their educational mission, while also protecting faculty members’ independence in teaching and scholarship. The four freedoms thus framed academic freedom not merely as an employment right, but as a structural constitutional principle tied to democratic governance and freedom of inquiry.

Keyishian and the Constitutionalization of (Some) Academic Freedom

In January 1967, the Feinberg Law again found its way before a very different looking Supreme Court in Keyishian v. Board of Regents. [9] The case arose from the University at Buffalo, where four faculty members and a librarian refused to sign a state-mandated loyalty oath required by the law. Their refusal cost them their jobs, halted their careers, and exposed them to public hostility in a political climate still under the influence of McCarthyism.

At the time, New York law required nearly all public employees, including university faculty, to certify that they were not members of any “subversive” organization. The new public University at Buffalo (previously the University of Buffalo), after incorporation into the State University of New York system, became the unlikely epicenter of this constitutional confrontation over the individual autonomy of public university faculty.

The once-private university professor employees, now public employees and suddenly subject to the Feinberg Law, challenged the constitutionality of the oath despite the court’s decision in Adler less than 15 years earlier. As a result, they became isolated within their own institution, received only tentative support from national academic organizations, and faced intense local political pressure in then-conservative Buffalo. The litigation unfolded against a backdrop of congressional investigations, campus protests and public suspicion toward universities as havens for subversive thought. Such circumstances can be thought of as a microcosm of the broader cultural conflict that defined the era (and observant readers may detect a rhyme with our own).

When the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the faculty, it did more than invalidate a single state statute. Justice William J. Brennan’s majority opinion (joined by Adler dissenters Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black) repudiated the core assumptions underlying such oaths and recognized academic freedom as a protected right in sweeping terms. Public employment could no longer be conditioned on ideological conformity, and academic freedom became a “special concern of the First Amendment.” The government could not by law “cast a pall of orthodoxy” over the classroom.

Drawing from Sweezy, Justice Brennan emphasized that the nation’s future depends upon “that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues.’” [10] In doing so, the court cast academic freedom as both an individual and institutional constitutional value, linking the autonomy of faculty and universities to the health of democracy.

Yet Keyishian did not define the precise contours of academic freedom. Nor did it allocate authority between individual professors and institutional leadership. Implementation would be left to future courts, administrators, faculty leaders and legislatures.

Is Academic Freedom Free Speech?

A persistent source of confusion lies in the relationship between academic freedom and free speech. Grounded in the First Amendment, free speech protects citizens, including public employees, from most governmental restrictions on expression. Academic freedom reflects a more focused constitutional concern, aimed at preserving the conditions necessary for teaching, research and intellectual inquiry within educational institutions.

Both concepts recognize that duties like teaching and research cannot be meaningfully separated from employment responsibilities in the public university context. Academic freedom protects scholarly inquiry even when it occurs within the scope of professional duties. Subjecting academic expression to restrictive conventional public-employee speech analysis may limit the constitutional protection precisely where it is most essential for university faculty. Simply put, when a public university hires faculty to do scholarship or research, subsequently directing the output of their inquiry is counterproductive to the effective pursuit of knowledge.

At the same time, academic freedom also safeguards institutional autonomy. Public universities must retain substantial authority to design curricula, set academic standards, govern admissions and structure research enterprises in ways that best serve their mission and enhance the public good. Institutional prerogatives also may arise from the structural freedoms articulated in Sweezy.

The traditional balancing of a public university employer’s right to regulate its faculty was rendered even more uncertain in 2006 by Garcetti v. Ceballos. [11] In Garcetti, the Supreme Court held that public employees do not receive First Amendment protection for speech made pursuant to their official duties. However, the court explicitly declined to decide whether the public-employee speech doctrine it formulated applies to academic speech, saying that “[w]e need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.” [12] Lower courts have subsequently diverged in their treatment of faculty expression. Some courts have recognized a distinct constitutional status for academic speech, while others have treated faculty work much as ordinary employment activity subject to managerial control.

In response to this uncertainty, efforts to regulate faculty speech have become emboldened. Universities must balance core tenets of academic inquiry and constitutional risk against legislative mandates and political pressure in an environment of legal ambiguity. The resulting compromise can effectively limit both faculty autonomy and institutional discretion.

Individual and Institutional Academic Freedom Under Modern Pressure

In recent years, both individual and institutional academic freedom have come under sustained pressure not seen since the Red Scare of the early Cold War era. Legislatures and executive officials increasingly assert control over classroom instruction, research agendas, admissions practices, diversity initiatives and institutional governance. Public and private universities, both of which are largely dependent on government sources of funding, face mounting demands to align curricula and programming with prevailing ideological agendas enforced through purse string persuasion, regulatory mandates and even directed control.

Government interventions implicate individual academic freedom when the professorate is directed to attend to or avoid specific viewpoints, methodologies or subject matter. They implicate institutional academic freedom when universities are compelled to redirect research, restructure programs, modify admissions practices, [13] disband diversity initiatives or police classroom speech in ways that distort educational objectives. In both contexts, the traditional autonomy of the educational enterprise is increasingly constrained.

Recent reporting in both industry and national media outlets documents an unprecedented escalation in attempts to regulate the academy at the federal level. [14] From curricular restrictions and content mandates to the restructuring of tenure protections to the politicization of university governance, faculty and institutions must navigate an environment of unprecedented interference.

Lawsuits challenging state statutes and institutional policies increasingly cite both individual and institutional academic freedom, arguing that new restrictions undermine the constitutional principles articulated in Sweezy and Keyishian. These cases highlight the unresolved tension between public accountability and intellectual autonomy, a feature of academic freedom jurisprudence since its inception.

Reconsidering Keyishian?

The convergence of ambiguous jurisprudence, contemporary political intervention, divergent circuit decisions and escalating litigation ripens Keyishian’s holding for certiorari. In recent years, state legislatures and governing boards have enacted measures that place both individual and institutional academic freedom squarely before the courts. Even more recently, the federal government has aggressively deployed its regulatory and enforcement machinery in novel ways to force viewpoint-inflected changes on both public and, even more notably, private universities. This includes tying certain funding eligibility to compliance with practices that critics say have little or no relationship with the purpose of the funding. [15]

Florida may provide one of the most prominent recent examples of state-level challenges to individual academic freedoms. There, the state has sought to restrict how faculty may teach about race, gender and systemic inequality, limited public funding for diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and even empowered state authorities to reshape curricula and academic priorities. [16] Faculty members have challenged the legislative restrictions on classroom instruction and university programming, arguing that statutory limits on how certain subjects may be taught impermissibly intrude into core academic functions and violate the First Amendment. [17] Similar challenges have emerged in Texas and Kentucky, where legislatures are accused of imposing content-based restrictions on instruction. [18]

Recent litigation involving Harvard University is the most prominent example of a private university finding itself at the center of fights over institutional academic freedom. In President & Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, et al. and its companion case American Association of University Professors – Harvard Faculty Chapter et al. v. United States Department of Justice, et al, [19] Harvard challenged federal actions that froze and terminated substantial research funding while conditioning future access to government funding on changes to curriculum, governance, and internal academic policies. Harvard contended that these demands impermissibly intrude into core institutional judgments concerning teaching, research and governance. While Harvard found success on summary judgment, the government is appealing to the First Circuit. [20]

These disputes implicate both dimensions of academic freedom. Individual faculty plaintiffs argue that curricular mandates and speech restrictions undermine their ability to teach and conduct research in accordance with professional standards. Universities assert institutional academic freedom, contending that legislative micromanagement of curriculum, governance and research priorities violates the four freedoms articulated in Sweezy and Keyishian. In this sense, modern litigation increasingly mirrors the structural constitutional questions that animated Cold War-era loyalty oath cases, albeit in a different political register. [21]

Together, these developments have produced doctrinal fragmentation and institutional uncertainty. Lower courts remain divided on how to balance legislative authority against constitutional academic freedom, particularly where funding, institutional governance and curricular content intersect. Circuit splits concerning academic speech, combined with high-profile challenges to state regulation of university instruction and governance, present precisely the kind of constitutional conflict that invites Supreme Court review.

Should the court reengage, it will confront fundamental questions about the nature of academic freedom in the modern regulatory state. Is academic freedom primarily an individual right, an institutional prerogative or a blend of both? How far may legislatures intrude into curricular and research decisions? How can universities retain meaningful autonomy in an era of heightened political oversight? The answers will determine whether the constitutional commitment articulated in Keyishian retains practical force, or whether academic freedom becomes largely symbolic in a higher education ecosystem increasingly governed – and funded – by external authority.

Conclusion

The constitutional framework established in Sweezy and Keyishian protected both individual scholars and the institutional autonomy of universities. Today, that framework faces renewed pressure as government actors seek greater control over curriculum, research, governance and institutional priorities.

As litigation advances on several fronts, it seems almost inevitable that the Supreme Court will revisit Keyishian. When it does, the court may have to confront fundamental questions about the role of universities in democratic society and the extent to which academic freedom remains a meaningful constitutional guarantee. In that sense, we will find out if the wave that crested and broke on the shore of Lake Erie more than half a century ago left Keyishian as a high-water mark that is now beginning to recede.

Seth F. Gilbertson is a member of the SUNY Office of General Counsel, serving as chief campus counsel for University at Buffalo. Prior to this role, Gilbertson was a partner at Bond, Schoeneck & King, where he served as deputy chair of the firm’s higher education group. His practice focuses primarily on student and employment matters for colleges and universities.

Endnotes:

[1] Within the context of academic governance, the foundational principles have remained largely stable since at least 1940. See American Association of University Professors, 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 11th ed., Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015, pp. 14-19.

[2] Adler v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 342 U.S. 485 (1952).

[3] Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957).

[4] Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).

[5] For purposes of economy, this article will not address the First Amendment protected rights of students.

[6] Adler, 342 U.S. at 510 (Douglas, J., dissenting).

[7] Sweezy, 354 U.S. 234 (1957).

[8] Id. at 263.

[9] For an entertaining and exhaustive exploration of the Keyishian case’s background, see Elliot Friedman’s ‘A Special Concern’: The Story of Keyishian v. Board of Regents. 38 JCUL 195 (2011).

[10] Keyishian, 385 U.S. at 603.

[11] Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).

[12] Id. at 425.

[13] See Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 312–15 (1978) (recognizing a university’s interest in academic freedom, including discretion in selecting its student body, as a factor supporting consideration of race in admissions). But see Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (rejecting reliance on academic freedom to justify race-conscious admissions practices and limiting deference to universities’ admissions judgments).

[14] Alan Blinder, Texas A&M Ends Women’s Studies and Overhauls Classes Over Race and Gender, N.Y Times, Jan. 30, 2026; Vimal Patel, The Conservative Overhaul of the University of Texas Is Underway, N.Y. Times, Dec. 10, 2025; Sarah Viren, A Professor Was Fired for Her Politics. Is That the Future of Academia?, N.Y. Times, June 6, 2025; David M. Rabban, The Legal Status of the Assault on Higher Education, Chron of Higher Educ., Dec. 19, 2025; Ryan Quinn, GOP State Lawmakers Targeting DEI and Tenure Again, Inside Higher Ed, February 11, 2025 (discussing state legislative efforts to influence institutional practices).

[15] See President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services and American Association of University Professors–Harvard Faculty Chapter v. United States Department of Justice, 798 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D. Mass. 2025), Memorandum and Order at ECF No. 238 (Sept. 3, 2025); see also Exec. Order 14173 (revoking EO 11246 and related orders directing elimination of discriminatory policies); Exec. Order 14151 (directing agencies to identify and review grantees whose DEI-related activities may be inconsistent with federal policy); OMB Federal Grant Pause (Jan. 27–28, 2025); Compact for Academic Excellence solicitation letters (Oct. 2025).

[16] See Stop WOKE Act (Individual Freedom Act), Fla. Stat. (2022) (prohibiting certain instructional content deemed to “espouse” particular viewpoints on race, gender, and systemic inequities); Fla. Senate Bill 266 (2023) (codified as part of Postsecondary Educational Institutions statutes, restricting DEI funding and general education curricula, revising curricular review, and altering governance duties of university boards), signed May 15, 2023, effective July 1, 2023.

[17] See Compl., Austin et. al. v. Lamb et. al., No. 1:25-cv-00016-MW-MJF, (N.D. Fla. 1/16/2025); see also Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors of the State University, 84 F.4th 1339 (11th Cir. 2023) (challenge to Florida’s restrictions on classroom instruction and university programming).

[18] See, Speech First, Inc. v. Fenves, 979 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2020) (challenging university speech policies in Texas as content- and viewpoint-based; Woodcock v. Univ. of Kentucky, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2976, 2026 WL 64108 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 8, 2026). North Carolina is poised to take a radically different approach by redefining the concept of academic freedom itself. See Ryan Quinn, UNC Plans To Define Academic Freedom – and Its Limits, Inside Higher Ed, January 29, 2025. The ACLU of Utah is currently challenging that state’s so-called Freedom to Read statute. See ACLU Utah, Vonnegut Estate, Authors, and Student Plaintiffs Take Utah to Court Over the Freedom To Read, Press Release – January 6, 2026, complaint available at https://www.acluutah.org/app/uploads/2026/01/HB29-Complaint-Filed.pdf.

[19] See President & Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, et al., 25-cv-11048 (D. Mass. April 21, 2025) and American Association of University Professors – Harvard Faculty Chapter et al. v. United States Department of Justice, et al., 25-cv-10910 (D. Mass. April 11, 2025). Judge Burroughs’ summary judgment decision (798 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D. Mass. 2025)) can be found at https://www.harvard.edu/federal-lawsuits/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2025/09/gov.uscourts.mad.283718.238.01.pdf.

[20] The dispute between Harvard and the Trump administration has also been the source of volatile negotiations. See Michael C. Bender, Alan Blinder, Mark Arsenault & Michael S. Schmidt , Trump, Changing Course, Throws Harvard Deal Talks Into Chaos, N.Y. Times, February 4, 2026.

[21] See, e.g., Dana Goldsten, How Politics Is Changing the Way History Is Taught, N.Y. Times, October 27, 2025; Emma Green, Inside the Trump Administration’s Assault on Higher Education, New Yorker, October 13, 2025; Adam Harris, An Existential Threat to American Higher Education, The Atlantic, November 5, 2023.

Share & Print

Copy Direct Link

Source

Copy Link

---

---

Join NYSBA

Join Now

My NYSBA Account

Sign In

My NYSBA Account

Sign In