By Staff Report
A federal appeals court on Tuesday left in place a district court’s preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Florida’s law banning “woke” instruction at public universities.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the state’s argument that it could control the speech of public university professors.
Writing for the majority, Judge Britt Grant, an appointee of President Donald Trump, called Florida’s position “a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the state’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry.” Judge Charles Wilson, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, joined the opinion.
“Florida seeks to strip public university professors—and by extension their students—of the ability to fully engage with ideas that are, for better or for worse, very popular in some academic circles,” Grant wrote. “The State asks us to consider its rules a means of targeting discrimination. But hearing an idea you disagree with is not discrimination; it is an opportunity to come up with a better idea, or maybe even change your mind.”
The lawsuit was filed by a group of university professors and supported by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
“We are thrilled the court has stopped the erasure of topics that have real implications for our students, allowing them to learn, discuss, and develop tools for combatting the complex issue of racism in our country without being gagged by those who would dictate that only state-approved thought may be promoted,” said LeRoy Pernell, a professor at the Florida A&M University College of Law and one of the plaintiffs.
The ruling prevents Florida from enforcing part of the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (WOKE) Act, which lawmakers passed and Gov. Ron DeSantis signed in 2022.
DeSantis promoted the law as a safeguard against what he described as “indoctrination” in university classrooms. It prohibits professors from endorsing certain concepts associated with critical race theory, including eight specific tenets.
Among them is a prohibition on instruction that causes students to “feel guilt, anguish or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin or sex.”
Supporters argued the law was intended to prevent racial discrimination in classroom instruction, while opponents said it would suppress discussions of subjects such as slavery, segregation and the Jim Crow era.
Other provisions of the law restricting workplace training on race, gender and sexual orientation issues have already been struck down by federal courts.
Judge Barbara Lagoa, also a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing the state has the authority to determine what its professors teach in public university classrooms.
“To be clear, the First Amendment protects all viewpoints in the public square, whether they are conventional or controversial. But it does not compel all viewpoints to be worthy of state-sponsored endorsement,” Lagoa wrote. “We need not agree or disagree with Florida that the viewpoints at issue here constitute racial discrimination; we need only acknowledge that the State is allowed to decide what is endorsed by its professors in its own classrooms.”
Before joining the 11th Circuit, Lagoa served on the Florida Supreme Court after being appointed by DeSantis.
Grant acknowledged that courts generally should not dictate university curriculum but said they must intervene when government actions violate constitutional protections.
“We share the dissent’s view that the federal courts do not police curriculum. But we do police the First Amendment,” Grant wrote. “And if the history of that Amendment tells us anything, it is that the government cannot forbid what it perceives as heresy.”
Skyla Carter 
GARETT VALCOURT 