Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/31

 they can receive from professors during class instruction. Both sides agreed at the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motions that the Student Plaintiffs’ right-to-receive-information claims are coextensive with the Professor Plaintiffs’ free speech claims, given that the information the students claim the right to receive is the same information that their professors wish to share with them. See Tr. at 25–28. Thus, in the context of this case, a university student would not have an independent First Amendment right to receive information that a university professor does not have a First Amendment right to share. This Court agrees with the parties and concludes that the Student Plaintiffs’ right-to-receive-information claims are coextensive with the Professor Plaintiffs’ free speech claims and, thus, that the Student Plaintiffs’ claims are properly analyzed under Bishop as discussed infra.

To start, the right to receive information “is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press that are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, in two senses.” ''Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico'', 457 U.S.