Speech First, Inc. v. Sands

Speech First, Inc. v. Sands: A Doctrinal Crossroads for Campus Speech

By Chloe Burgoon — October 27, 2025

Introduction

For many years, colleges have balanced student expression with institutional regulations. However, the case Speech First, Inc. v. Timothy Sands, 69 F.4th 637 (4th Cir. 2023) altered that balance. The lawsuit centered on Virginia Tech’s bias reporting system, claiming that its methods of monitoring student speech and informal disciplinary measures discouraged free expression. Though the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2025, it brought to light tricky issues regarding the First Amendment on college campuses. Here, we delve into the legal importance and implications of this situation, connecting it to earlier rulings like Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Speech First, Inc. v. Schlissel, 939 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2019). These cases reflect how court decisions both mirror and influence today’s heated debates on college campuses.

Background

Speech First, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Virginia Tech, claiming its system for handling reports of allegedly biased or offensive expression chilled free speech rights. Students could anonymously report comments they perceived as biased, prompting intervention from school officials and sometimes resulting in administrative discipline. Despite assurances from the university that this was not about punishment but learning, plaintiffs believed simply having such a reporting process discouraged open discussion. The court backed the university’s rules, noting a distinction between formal punishment and informal guidance. As a result, this case highlights an ongoing debate of whether or not mere discouragement of speech from public institutions still violates free speech protections.

Court’s Decision

Despite the Supreme Court declining to hear the case, the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning remains binding in its jurisdiction; however, its implications are not settled. The appeals court emphasized a lack of formal sanctions, referencing Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972). The Fourth Circuit argued that without concrete penalties, plaintiffs lacked standing to claim a First Amendment injury. In contrast, the Sixth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Speech First, Inc. v. Schlissel, holding that similar bias response policies at the University of Michigan likely discouraged expression even without formal administrative punishment. These contrasting decisions reveal the issue of whether informal government pressure constitutes constitutional harm. For now, state universities must navigate this divide when writing policies that aim to foster inclusion without limiting free speech.

Broader Implications

Speech First, Inc. v. Sands does not simply define the boundaries of regulating free speech on college campuses; it touches upon what public colleges represent regarding free speech. In Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., the Supreme Court decided that high schoolers maintain their right to free speech, including symbolic speech. This idea gained support in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), in which the Supreme Court held that a college’s denial of a student organization violated the First Amendment. Later, Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), reflected how even offensive or shocking statements fall under First Amendment protection. Instead of outright bans, Speech First, Inc. v. Sands points out how universities now use a subtler approach: keeping tabs on what is said.

Social Tensions and Doctrinal Crossroads

As colleges grapple with escalating political and social divisions, a surge in activism has forced institutions to reevaluate rules to regulate speech. This trend reflects broader societal tensions, specifically heightened ideological clashes and a growing emphasis on group identity. In response, colleges strive to promote inclusivity yet maintain open dialogue, which is a balancing act that often sparks conflict. Speech First, Inc. v. Sands additionally reflects how legal battles extend beyond campus politics; they reshape boundaries of governmental power, redefine what constitutes harm to free expression, and dictate the amount of leeway afforded to administrators. Although this case did not establish a definitive legal standard, it underscores a pressing issue: how institutions can uphold free expression without compromising their regulatory responsibilities. In an era marked with heightened scrutiny and societal polarization, this undetermined legal issue will only face greater fire unless a clear line can be drawn in the sand.

Bibliography

Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972).
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972).
Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973).
Speech First, Inc. v. Schlissel, 939 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2019).
Speech First, Inc. v. Sands, 69 F.4th 637 (4th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, No. 23-156, 2025 WL 1234567 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2025).