Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/15

 “Thus, a speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter.” Reed, 576 U.S. at 169 (emphasis added). With these principles in mind, this Court turns to the unique role public universities play under the First Amendment and whether the State may permissibly enforce viewpoint-based restrictions on educators’ classroom speech.

“[S]tate colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment.” Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972). As recently as 2003, the Supreme Court reaffirmed “that given the important purpose of public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 329 (2003) (listing cases); see also Healy, 408 U.S. at 180–81 (“The college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas,’ and we break no new constitutional ground in reaffirming this Nation’s dedication to safeguarding academic freedom.”).

To be clear, though, the Supreme Court has never definitively proclaimed that “academic freedom” is a stand-alone right protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit has explicitly rejected the argument that “academic freedom” is an independent constitutional right. See Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066, 1075 (11th Cir. 1991) (“Though we are mindful of the invaluable role