Federal Court Rules Idaho Officials Will Not Enforce Abortion Censorship Law Against Public University Professors
BOISE, Idaho — The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho denied a request by six Idaho professors and two teachers’ unions for a preliminary injunction against the state’s No Public Funds for Abortion Act (NPFAA), a law that makes it a crime to use public funds to promote or counsel in favor of abortion. The court found that the professors could engage in their planned teaching and scholarship without fear of prosecution because of explicit statements — made by the Idaho attorney general immediately following the filing of this lawsuit — that the law did not apply to academic speech.
“The NPFAA shut down academic inquiry about abortion — one of today’s most urgent social, moral, and political issues — across Idaho public university campuses. Only after we filed this lawsuit did the attorney general suddenly interpret the statute as inapplicable to this kind of academic speech.” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The court correctly acknowledged the dangerous threat to the First Amendment posed by the NPFAA, and we are pleased that it and the attorney general have recognized that professors can engage in academic speech without fear of prosecution.”
Before this case was filed, as a result of the NPFAA and legal guidance from their own universities, professors teaching about abortion across myriad disciplines were forced to censor course content; curtail lectures and class discussion; stop advising student research and writing; and avoid pursuing their own scholarship. However, after the ACLU filed this lawsuit, the attorney general issued an opinion stating that the NPFAA “does not prohibit university employees from speaking on abortion in their academic teaching or scholarship, even if that teaching or scholarship could be viewed as supporting abortion or abortion rights in general.”
As the court explained in its decision, it agreed with the university professors that a one-sided prohibition only on “speech that promotes or counsels in favor of abortion, while permitting speech that denounces or counsels against abortion” is “blatantly unconstitutional.” However, based on the attorney general’s commitment not to enforce the NPFAA against professors’ academic speech, the court concluded that the professors could resume engaging in constitutionally protected speech without fear of prosecution.
“For university employees and students, the NPFAA was a minefield that made reasoned discussion impossible. How could we teach about U.S. society without addressing abortion — one of the defining cultural and political issues of the day?” said Martin Orr, president of the Idaho Federation of Teachers. “Our educators and students deserved better and we are encouraged that they may now resume robust discussion about this important topic.”
The NPFAA is just one of many attempts in Idaho to attack reproductive health care and abortion — including by censoring information about essential care — in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
“It's vital for Idaho's public universities to have autonomy in fostering vibrant debate on their campuses, free from government interference,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, legal director of the ACLU of Idaho. “Idaho's abortion censorship law directly undermined that autonomy, attempting to restrict educators’ free speech and stoke fear of retaliation for such speech in our state. We’re heartened that the court recognized the dangers of such interference with the First Amendment and we will keep fighting to protect the fundamental rights of educators and students across Gem State university campuses.”
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, Professor Seth Kreimer, and the law firm Scholnick Birch Hallam Harstad Thorne.
Free Speech
Idaho Federation of Teachers v. Labrador
Free Speech
Idaho Federation of Teachers v. Labrador
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.