Free Speech

Eugene Volokh | 1.12.2026 8:33 AM

In Tampa Bay Students for a Democratic Society v. Univ. of South Florida, decided Friday by Judge Steven Merryday (M.D. Fla.), the SDS challenged its expulsion from USF, as well as various USF policies:

Policy 6-017.VI.C.2: "Members of student organizations that are suspended or expelled may not … attempt to continue to function at the university under a new name but with similar members and purpose."

Policy 6-028.VI.E.1: "Displays, tables, and exhibits need prior approval using the Reserved Activity Request or Space Impact Process."

Policy 6-028.VII.I.2: "Non-University guests who wish to attend an Activity sponsored by a University Entity may be required to be ac-companied by a USF representative (student, faculty, or staff member) with a valid USF identification card. Non-University guests must show a valid drivers' license or another form of picture ID upon request. Guests may be required to be registered for some Activities."

Policy 6-028.VII.L.3: "A reservation through the Reserved Activity Request process is required" for the use of space by a student organization after 5:00 p.m.

Policy 6-028.VII.A.9: "To provide an environment conducive to preparation of final or cumulative exams, the final two weeks of any academic term, no Activities will be permitted in or near Academic Spaces on campus, without reservations."

The expulsion only applied to the group as a group, and didn't apply to its members, though some members were indeed expelled for their own misconduct. The court upheld the policies (after laying out the various ways in which SDS was alleged to have violated many USF rules):

"[E]ven in a public forum the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989). "Outdoor areas of campus are considered traditional public forums for individuals, organizations, and guest speakers….'Outdoor areas of campus' means generally accessible areas of a public institution of higher education in which members of the campus community are commonly allowed, including grassy areas, walkways, or other similar common areas." §§ 1004.097(3)(c), (2)(d), Fla. Stat [part of the Florida Campus Free Expression Act]….

The plaintiffs offer no argument as to why the Guest Policy, which regulates the access of non-students to the USF campus, violates the First Amendment. The claim fails….

The Final-Exam Week Policy states: "To provide an environment conducive to preparation of final or cumulative exams, the final two weeks of any academic term, no Activities will be permitted in or near Academic Spaces on campus, without reservations." Patently content-neutral and expressly and reasonably tied to a significant university interest, the Final-Exam Week Policy allows ample alternative channels of communication both during the final two weeks of each academic term and during the forty-eight weeks the policy does not apply ….

Mischaracterizing the Reservation Policy as a "curfew," the plaintiffs argue that the hours set by the policy are "untenably early for speech and advocacy outdoors on a public university campus" …. Neither a "curfew" nor a "ban," the Reservation Policy, which the plaintiffs concede is a "permit requirement[ ]," requires only advance reservation for the use of university space during evening hours: a permissible time, place, and manner restriction by any standard.

The plaintiffs argue that the Reservation Policy, along with the Tabling Policy, afford USF "unbridled discretion" because "no published standards exist for consideration of such requests." Although USF Policy 6-028.III affords the university discretion to "take appropriate action if there are reasonable grounds to believe an Activity presents an imminent threat to the health, safety, welfare, or operation of campus," that discretion is subject to the extensive "published standards" set forth in Policy 6-028, which span twenty pages and incorporate seven additional USF policies, four USF regulations, and four Florida statutes…

The plaintiffs contend that "[c]ontent neutrality is absent from defendants' complete ban on [ ]SDS and groups with 'similar members and purpose.'" Adopted long before the expulsion........

© Reason.com