On Wednesday, July 15th, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court issued an order withholding the issuance of the mandate in a case involving speech restrictions imposed on a Florida university professor. This procedural move suggests that if the initial panel declines rehearing, an active judge has requested a poll for en banc consideration, meaning the full court may review the case.

The case centers on the constitutionality of Florida's Individual Freedom Act, which restricts training or instruction that "espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels" certain concepts related to race, color, sex, or national origin. While the Act bars endorsing these concepts, it permits instructors to introduce and discuss them in a neutral, objective manner without endorsement.

The legal question involves balancing the state's control over public universities—including appointing the Board of Governors and setting curricular standards—with the First Amendment rights of professors. The case draws parallels to a 1991 University of Alabama case, where a professor was barred from using class time to express religious views, raising questions about the extent schools may regulate classroom instruction without infringing on free speech.

The initial panel ruling was split 2-1, reflecting the case's complexity and prominence. The court's forthcoming decision on whether to rehear the case en banc will be closely watched for its implications on academic freedom and speech rights within public universities.

Notable Quotes

  • "A judge of this Court withholds issuance of the mandate in this appeal."
  • "In the event the panel declines to grant rehearing, the judge requests that a poll be taken regarding en banc consideration."
  • "Training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels [certain concepts] is barred, but criticizing them is not."
  • "Instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts."

Sources