Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/12

 disagrees. Plaintiffs assert that the challenged restrictions amount to vague, viewpoint-based restrictions on protected speech that are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny. Defendants, on the other hand, assert that because public university professors work for the State, their in-class speech is government speech beyond the First Amendment’s reach. And even if the First Amendment does apply, Defendants argue, the State’s actions must be judged by something akin to rational basis review.

In presenting their respective positions, both sides go too far in conflating legal concepts, quoting language devoid of context from their source material, and ignoring controlling authority. But this Court does not get to cherry-pick convenient language to build an analytical framework that is unsupported by binding precedent. Instead, this Court must apply binding Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit authority.

“Start with the basics.” Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 503 (6th Cir. 2021). “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. “[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972). This