A federal appeals court has upheld a block on a major portion of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s Stop WOKE Act, ruling that the state cannot control which viewpoints public university professors may endorse when teaching subjects involving race, sex and national origin.
In a 2-1 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a preliminary injunction preventing Florida from enforcing the law’s higher-education provisions against public college and university professors.
The ruling does not apply to Florida’s elementary or secondary schools. It is specifically limited to public postsecondary education, where the court said professors and students have stronger First Amendment interests in open discussion and academic inquiry.
The Stop WOKE Act, formally called the Individual Freedom Act, was signed into law in 2022. It prohibited instructors from “espousing, promoting, advancing, inculcating, or compelling” belief in eight disputed concepts involving race, color, sex and national origin.
TRENDING TODAY
The law did not completely prohibit professors from mentioning those ideas. It allowed them to be discussed objectively as part of a broader course, but barred instructors from endorsing them. The appeals court concluded that distinction amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because professors could criticize the targeted concepts but could not express agreement with them.
Judge Britt Grant, writing for the majority, rejected Florida’s argument that professors’ classroom speech should be treated entirely as government speech because the state pays their salaries.
The court described that position as an extraordinary assertion of state power over university classrooms. It said Florida could manage employees, establish courses and require competent instruction, but could not force every professor to follow an official political viewpoint.
“Puppeteering every university professor in the state” was not a constitutionally acceptable way for Florida to promote its preferred ideas, the majority wrote. The opinion concluded that the law crossed the First Amendment’s protections for public university teaching and scholarship.
The regulations attached to the law carried potentially serious consequences. Universities could lose performance funding if state officials determined that they knowingly failed to correct violations. Professors could face investigations, disciplinary action or possible termination for refusing to modify instruction deemed inconsistent with the law.
Judge Barbara Lagoa dissented, arguing that states have broad authority to control instruction inside publicly funded universities. She said professors are government employees teaching state-sponsored courses and that Florida should be able to decide which ideas its institutions officially endorse.
The dissent did not argue that all controversial views should be banned from public discussion. Instead, it maintained that the First Amendment does not require a state to sponsor every viewpoint through its own educational system.
Florida officials have defended the Stop WOKE Act as an anti-discrimination measure intended to prevent racial stereotyping and the promotion of concepts they consider divisive. The Florida Department of Education has said the law was designed to stop instruction that assigns guilt, responsibility or judgment to students because of their race or sex.
Critics, however, argued that its broad language pressured professors to avoid legitimate discussions about systemic racism, sexism, privilege, unconscious bias and the historical effects of discrimination.
The lawsuit was brought by Florida professors and students represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, the Legal Defense Fund and the law firm Ballard Spahr. Named plaintiff LeRoy Pernell, a professor at Florida A&M University’s College of Law, said the decision would allow students to study complicated questions about racism without professors being restricted to state-approved conclusions.
The latest decision follows an earlier legal defeat involving the law’s workplace-training provisions. In 2024, the same appeals court upheld a block on restrictions affecting mandatory diversity training in private workplaces, finding that Florida could not ban speech simply because state officials considered particular ideas offensive.
For students and families, the ruling does not require professors to teach any particular political theory. It instead prevents the state from deciding that one side of a disputed academic question may be supported while the other may only be criticized.
Universities can still set academic standards, design curricula, evaluate faculty performance and remove irrelevant or professionally incompetent instruction. The court distinguished those normal educational decisions from a statewide law targeting particular political viewpoints.
The decision may influence similar legal disputes beyond Florida. Civil-rights groups said more than 30 states have considered or adopted higher-education restrictions involving classroom discussions of race and gender, making the Florida case an important test of how far governments may regulate public university teaching.
Why It Matters
The ruling establishes an important limit on how state governments can shape political and social discussions inside public universities. Supporters of the law say elected officials should be able to protect students from discriminatory instruction. Opponents argue that allowing politicians to approve or reject academic viewpoints would undermine free inquiry and turn universities into extensions of whichever party controls state government.
For professors and students, the decision preserves greater room to examine controversial ideas without the threat of funding penalties, investigations or discipline based primarily on viewpoint.
What Comes Next
Florida could seek rehearing before the full 11th Circuit or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the dispute. The preliminary injunction will remain in place while the litigation continues, preventing enforcement of the challenged higher-education provisions.
Related restrictions affecting K-12 education and other Florida policies remain legally separate. Future court cases will determine whether similar classroom laws in other states can survive constitutional challenges.
