Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/93

 during class. Instead, it determined that the University had proved it had a sufficient interest to justify restricting Dr. Bishop’s in-class speech about his religious beliefs.

Accordingly, equipped with the First Amendment principles previously discussed, this Court proceeds with its own case-by-case inquiry and applies Bishop’s balancing test to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims.

Applying Bishop’s balancing test to Plaintiffs’ free speech claims, this Court starts with Bishop’s first factor—context. Unlike in Bishop, the context of this case does not implicate Establishment Clause concerns, nor does it focus on student complaints about a single professor who used class time to discuss personal beliefs that the University had deemed to be outside the scope of his course’s curriculum. Instead, the context here includes the State of Florida’s passage of a sweeping prohibition on expressing certain viewpoints about eight concepts during training or instruction at state universities. This prophylactic ban on university employees’ speech affects potentially thousands of professors and serves as an ante hoc deterrent that “chills potential speech before it happens,” and “gives rise to far more serious concerns than could any single supervisory decision,” such as that in Bishop. ''U.S. v. Nat’l Treas. Emp’s Union, 513 U.S. 454, 468 (1995) (NTEU'').